Intelligent Design

Why Secular and Theistic Darwinists Fear ID

Spread the love

In this comment I included an essay I wrote in 1994 at the behest of a Christian friend, David Pounds, after my conversion from militant atheism to traditional Christianity.

Dave encouraged me to write it, but it only chronicles one aspect of the journey (the most significant one).

But there was another extremely significant aspect of this journey, which I cannot overemphasize, and that was reading Michael Denton’s Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, recommended to me by Dave. I was thoroughly schooled in traditional Darwinian orthodoxy, and never gave a thought to the possibility that there might be problems with it.

It took me only a few hours over a couple of days to read the book, and my materialistic worldview concerning origins completely and irrevocably collapsed. The logic, evidence, and argumentation presented by Denton were compelling, and I realized that I had been conned by the “scientific consensus,” with the obvious intention of promoting a secular, materialistic worldview.

It also became immediately obvious that “God-guided evolution” was an oxymoron, since “evolution,” as defined in the academy and by its major promoters, is by definition undirected and without purpose.

This is why secular humanists (e.g., the NCSE) must denigrate, defame, ridicule, and otherwise abuse ID proponents, and fight attempts to present any contrary evidence. The stakes are high, for those who want to promote a godless worldview.

124 Replies to “Why Secular and Theistic Darwinists Fear ID

  1. 1
    warehuff says:

    Gil, I think you’re selling theistic evolution short. Evolution may be “undirected and without purpose”, but it can still be guided.

    Think of an apple sapling a few inches high. If left to itself, it will grow into an apple tree with a straight trunk and a conventional “tree shape”. This would correspond to unguided evolution.

    A gardener can train the sapling’s trunk and branches and tie them into a different shape. After a while the ties can be removed and the adult tree will retain that shape. You can even weave the branches together if you wish. This would correspond to theistic evolution.

    I don’t understand why people deny God the ability to shape evolution in this way. They seem to insist that the only way God can make an apple tree is to personally select every atom in the tree and place it in exactly the right place.

    Guided evolution is a good a way to design something without having to do all of the tedious work.

    Google “espalier” or go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espalier for examples.

  2. 2
    GilDodgen says:

    I don’t deny that God-guided evolution could be the case, but this would mean that Darwin was wrong, and theistic Darwinists want to claim that Darwin was right but God guided evolution. Darwinian evolution is, after all, supposed to be the product of random variation, not planned or guided variation.

    As Denyse has pointed out, theistic evolution is a solution to a problem that no longer exists.

  3. 3
    bornagain77 says:

    warehuff you state:

    “Guided evolution is a good a way to design something without having to do all of the tedious work.”

    On the face of it, what you say seems plausible but when we get into the details you scenario actually greatly increases the amount of tedious work for the Designer.

    Case in point, is it easier for man to design a new operating system for a computer by ‘bottom up’ incrementally changing a existing program one bit at a time, maintaining functionality of the computer system for each step the entire time, or is it easier for man to design a new operating system from the top down, in the proper hierarchal structure, so as to accomplish the desired function? The answer should be obvious that the ‘tedious work’ is greatly decreased by the top down approach. But to make it even more clear, the ‘operating system of life is far more complex than the operating system of any computer made by man:

    Simplest Microbes More Complex than Thought – Dec. 2009
    Excerpt: PhysOrg reported that a species of Mycoplasma,, “The bacteria appeared to be assembled in a far more complex way than had been thought.” Many molecules were found to have multiple functions: for instance, some enzymes could catalyze unrelated reactions, and some proteins were involved in multiple protein complexes.”
    http://www.creationsafaris.com.....#20091229a

    First-Ever Blueprint of ‘Minimal Cell’ Is More Complex Than Expected – Nov. 2009
    Excerpt: A network of research groups,, approached the bacterium at three different levels. One team of scientists described M. pneumoniae’s transcriptome, identifying all the RNA molecules, or transcripts, produced from its DNA, under various environmental conditions. Another defined all the metabolic reactions that occurred in it, collectively known as its metabolome, under the same conditions. A third team identified every multi-protein complex the bacterium produced, thus characterising its proteome organisation.
    “At all three levels, we found M. pneumoniae was more complex than we expected,”
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....173027.htm

    Scientists Map All Mammalian Gene Interactions – August 2010
    Excerpt: Mammals, including humans, have roughly 20,000 different genes.,,, They found a network of more than 7 million interactions encompassing essentially every one of the genes in the mammalian genome.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....142044.htm

    This presents a huge polyfuctional/polyconstrained problem for the ‘tedious work’ to be accomplished for Poly-Functional Complexity equals Poly-Constrained Complexity

    The primary problem that poly-functional complexity presents for neo-Darwinism, or even its confused step child of Theistic Evolution, is this:

    To put it plainly, the finding of a severely poly-functional/polyconstrained genome by the ENCODE study has put the odds, of what was already astronomically impossible, to what can only be termed fantastically astronomically impossible. To illustrate the monumental brick wall any evolutionary scenario (no matter what “fitness landscape”) must face when I say genomes are poly-constrained to random mutations by poly-functionality, I will use a puzzle:

    If we were to actually get a proper “beneficial mutation’ in a polyfunctional genome of say 500 interdependent genes, then instead of the infamous “Methinks it is like a weasel” single element of functional information that Darwinists pretend they are facing in any evolutionary search, with their falsified genetic reductionism scenario I might add, we would actually be encountering something more akin to this illustration found on page 141 of Genetic Entropy by Dr. Sanford.

    S A T O R
    A R E P O
    T E N E T
    O P E R A
    R O T A S

    Which is translated ;
    THE SOWER NAMED AREPO HOLDS THE WORKING OF THE WHEELS.

    This ancient puzzle, which dates back to 79 AD, reads the same four different ways, Thus, If we change (mutate) any letter we may get a new meaning for a single reading read any one way, as in Dawkins weasel program, but we will consistently destroy the other 3 readings of the message with the new mutation.

    This is what is meant when it is said a poly-functional genome is poly-constrained to any random mutations.

    The puzzle I listed is only poly-functional to 4 elements/25 letters of interdependent complexity, the minimum genome is poly-constrained to approximately 500 elements (genes) at minimum approximation of polyfunctionality. For Darwinist to continue to believe in random mutations to generate the staggering level of complexity we find in life is absurd in the highest order!
    https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AYmaSrBPNEmGZGM4ejY3d3pfMjdoZmd2emZncQ&hl=en

    As well warehuff, the fossil record is anything but friendly to the idea of gradual processes creating major phyla/kinds on earth:

    Here is a fairly good outline of the fossil record as it truly stands:

    The Truth About Evolution – Transitional Fossils
    Excerpt: Major adaptive radiations provide a formidable challenge to biological evolution. A major adaptive radiation is the simultaneous appearance of many diverse forms of a group, for example, birds, with wide geographical distribution. The appearance of the invertebrate phyla in the Cambrian was a major adaptive radiation. Besides the invertebrate phyla, the fossil record shows that vertebrates have undergone so many major adaptive radiations that it is the norm for their appearance. Carroll writes: “the phylogenies of all major vertebrate groups show an irregular, episodic history of occasional large-scale radiations followed by the long-term survival of a relatively small number of basically distinct structural and/or adaptive types.” These radiations are inexplicable by evolution because so many diverse forms appear virtually simultaneously without fossil evidence of interrelationships. Major adaptive radiations of groups of vertebrates are:

    a) Placoderms in the early Devonian. Because they were heavily armored, jawed fish, intermediates and ancestral forms should have fossilized but none are found. No placoderms exist today.
    b) Chondrichtyes during the Devonian. They are the cartilaginous fish such as sharks and rays. Intermediates and ancestors are unknown.
    c) Agnatha Fish in the Silurian. These were jawless fish with bony skeletons. Intermediates and ancestors should have fossilized but none are found. Most types became extinct but hagfish and lampreys are living jawless fish.
    d)Tetrapods in the early Carboniferous. These were many, diverse forms of four-legged amphibians that are believed to have evolved from fish. But no fossilized links to fish have been found and specific interrelationships of the numerous lineages is unknown.
    e) Amniotes in the late Carboniferous. Amniotes are characterized by their complex reproductive system and include reptiles, birds and mammals. They are believed to have evolved from amphibians but their ancestry has not been determined from the fossil record.
    f) Archosaurs in the late Permian. They were reptiles with diverse sizes and shapes that became extinct in the Triassic. Some as long as six meters have been found.
    g ) Dinosaurs in the late Triassic. Dinosaurs include the largest terrestrial animals that have ever lived. Their diversity in size and shape was spectacular. Their ancestry is unknown and specific interrelationships of the numerous types is unknown.
    h) Teleosts in the late Cretaceous. These are bony fish approximately 20,000 living species in 35 orders and 409 families. Interrelationships of the higher groups are unknown.
    i) Therian mammals in the late Cretaceous and early Tertiary. These are placental and marsupial mammals. When they first appear in the fossil record, they are very diverse and interrelationships are unknown.
    j) Birds in the late Cretaceous and early Tertiary. There are estimates of 8900 living species in 166 families and about 27 orders. Fossil evidence is lacking for establishing the interrelationships of the orders of birds.
    http://tellall.org/fossils.htm

    So warehuff, basically your scenario of ‘guided evolution’ avoiding the ‘tedious work’, while maybe useful once a major phyla/kind appears, is for practical purposes of what we know ‘scientifically’ to be severely lacking in empirical support.

  4. 4
    jstanley01 says:

    Evolution may be “undirected and without purpose”, but it can still be guided.

    Please correct me if I am wrong, but aren’t “guided” and “directed,” along with their prefixed descendents “unguided” and “undirected,” still synonymous?

    If not, I’d like to make a special offer to everyone at UD: A guided one-week tour to the historic Alamo City where I live.

    Just fifty bucks. It’ll be great. Honest… 🙂

  5. 5
    jurassicmac says:

    I usually don’t refer to myself as a ‘theistic evolutionist’ for the same reason I don’t refer to myself as a ‘theistic gravitationalist’ or a ‘theistic heliocentrist’; To a scientifically inclined Christian, those terms should be redundancies. I don’t think that Theists who accept darwinism ‘fear’ ID as much as ‘are embarrassed by it.’
    Gil, I agree with you that it doesn’t make any sense to say that ‘God guided darwinian evolution.’ But that certainly doesn’t rule out the idea that God intended the results of darwinian evolution. There is no reason to think an omnipotent being couldn’t set up the proper initial conditions for a universe in which evolution not only occurs, but also produces intelligent creatures, and not have to fiddle around with the process after it is started. If one were to have perfect knowledge of all natural processes and laws, (like if one had created them) It would be trivial to set up initial conditions to produce any desired outcome, without having to violate those laws or intervene in any way.

    With perfect knowledge of the laws, intervention would only be required for interaction with the creatures, not for the assembly of them.

  6. 6
    jstanley01 says:

    If God created everything, obviously He created randomness too.

    Therefore the question that ID has to ask of “theistic evolution,” it seems to me, is little different from the question ID is asking the Darwinists.

    That being, as I understand it: Is the is the “created randomness” (as opposed to, I suppose, “the random randomness”) a sufficient cause to produce the observed phenomena?

  7. 7
    bornagain77 says:

    jstanley01

    “is the “created randomness” (as opposed to, I suppose, “the random randomness”) a sufficient cause to produce the observed phenomena?”

    Thanks for the chuckle!

  8. 8
    tgpeeler says:

    jurassicmac @ 5 “There is no reason to think an omnipotent being couldn’t set up the proper initial conditions for a universe in which evolution not only occurs, but also produces intelligent creatures, and not have to fiddle around with the process after it is started. If one were to have perfect knowledge of all natural processes and laws, (like if one had created them) It would be trivial to set up initial conditions to produce any desired outcome, without having to violate those laws or intervene in any way.”

    Perhaps not. Here’s why I think so. Natural processes (everything described by physics and chemistry) cannot create language or information. But the genetic code/language and biological information must be explained. All languages require symbols, rules, and the exercise of “free” will else information is impossible to create. This necessitates Mind as natural laws have nothing to say of symbols, rules, or free will. Even those created by the Mind in the first place.

  9. 9
    tribune7 says:

    I don’t think that Theists who accept darwinism ‘fear’ ID as much as ‘are embarrassed by it.’

    IOW, if you are seen associating with it those from whom you wish to curry favor might not invite you to their parties.

  10. 10
    Clive Hayden says:

    I don’t think that Theists who accept darwinism ‘fear’ ID as much as ‘are embarrassed by it.’

    I’m embarrassed by them, so now where are we?

  11. 11
    jurassicmac says:

    tgpeeler said:

    “Natural processes (everything described by physics and chemistry) cannot create language or information.”

    What makes you think that? Natural processes produce information all the time. A well made clock, which requires no intervention after it is built, provides the information of the current time long after its maker has turned it on. In fact, that’s the whole point of a clock, to keep providing information while operating according to laws like friction, inertia, electricity, etc.

    Or, imagine you build a device with a camera and a basic computer with software for object and color detection, and a voice synthesizer. You set it up on a busy city corner and it says ‘brown dog’ or ‘red car’ whenever one of those things passes by. You can leave this device, and will continue to speak information about its surroundings, without intervention on its maker’s part, according to the laws of nature and its programming.

    Now, of course I’m not arguing that there’s no design in the process at all, I’m just demonstrating that things acting according to predetermined rules can produce information ‘on their own,’ if designed to do so. I believe the universe is designed, but that that design is all up front, in the finely tuned initial conditions. That, in my opinion is why ID theory continually fails; it is looking for design in the wrong place; it is continually ‘crying wolf’ by declaring that natural mechanisms couldn’t have produced this feature or that feature. When a plausible natural mechanism is found for those features, (Which has been the case for many of the icons of ID,) IDers loose that much more credibility.

  12. 12
    bornagain77 says:

    jurassicmac,

    So the question goes to you as it has gone to hundreds of other evolutionists on UD. Can you please provide just one example of functional information/complexity being generated by evolutionary processes that will withstand scrutiny?

  13. 13
    Upright BiPed says:

    #11

    “What makes you think that?”

    Peeler can answer for himself, but I’ll bet it’s because its unequivocally true.

    “Natural processes produce information all the time. A well made clock, which requires no intervention after it is built”

    Since when is a clock a natural process? And if a clock in not a natural process, then what is it doing in your sentence other than creating a category error?

    Moreover, a clock produces no information, it simply has a mechanism for moving a needle around a marked dial with regularity – nothing more.

    Information is the product of perception – and by no other means does it come into existence. For information to be produced using a clock requires a perceiver to perceive what the needle on the dial represents.

    There is a line of thinking that there is information throughout the cosmos. It is not true. There are no particles of information among the other particles of matter. Infomration is immaterial (yet, apparently requires a material/energy substrate as far as anyone knows).

    In other words, information is not in the matter, nor is it the product of the matter. It is about the matter instead – and requires perception in order to exist.

    Perhaps you disagree. That’s cool 🙂

  14. 14
    Upright BiPed says:

    unequivocally = unequivocably

    …by the way, why don’t you share with us some of those ID icons that have been shot down.

  15. 15
    jurassicmac says:

    bornagain77 said:

    “So the question goes to you as it has gone to hundreds of other evolutionists on UD. Can you please provide just one example of functional information/complexity being generated by evolutionary processes that will withstand scrutiny?”

    I’d be glad to. But before I can do that the question goes to you as it has gone to hundreds of other creationists on the internet. Can you please provide a precise, concise, definition of functional information/complexity, {or FCSI} and more importantly, an objective way to quantify it that will withstand scrutiny?”

    Now, even though you’ve placed ‘complexity’ by itself on the other side of the “/” – I’m sure you don’t need me to explain how natural processes can produce complexity

  16. 16
    bornagain77 says:

    Definition of functional information:

    Functional information and the emergence of bio-complexity:
    Robert M. Hazen, Patrick L. Griffin, James M. Carothers, and Jack W. Szostak:
    Abstract: Complex emergent systems of many interacting components, including complex biological systems, have the potential to perform quantifiable functions. Accordingly, we define ‘functional information,’ I(Ex), as a measure of system complexity. For a given system and function, x (e.g., a folded RNA sequence that binds to GTP), and degree of function, Ex (e.g., the RNA-GTP binding energy), I(Ex)= -log2 [F(Ex)], where F(Ex) is the fraction of all possible configurations of the system that possess a degree of function > Ex. Functional information, which we illustrate with letter sequences, artificial life, and biopolymers, thus represents the probability that an arbitrary configuration of a system will achieve a specific function to a specified degree. In each case we observe evidence for several distinct solutions with different maximum degrees of function, features that lead to steps in plots of information versus degree of functions.
    http://genetics.mgh.harvard.ed.....S_2007.pdf

    Mathematically Defining Functional Information In Molecular Biology – Kirk Durston – short video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3995236
    Entire video:
    http://vimeo.com/1775160

    and this paper:

    Measuring the functional sequence complexity of proteins – Kirk K Durston, David KY Chiu, David L Abel and Jack T Trevors – 2007
    Excerpt: We have extended Shannon uncertainty by incorporating the data variable with a functionality variable. The resulting measured unit, which we call Functional bit (Fit), is calculated from the sequence data jointly with the defined functionality variable. To demonstrate the relevance to functional bioinformatics, a method to measure functional sequence complexity was developed and applied to 35 protein families.,,,
    http://www.tbiomed.com/content/4/1/47

    It is interesting to note that many evolutionists are very evasive if questioned by someone to precisely define functional information. In fact I’ve seen some die-hard evolutionists deny that information even exists in a cell. Many times evolutionists will try to say information is generated using Claude Shannon’s broad definition of information, since ‘non-functional’ information bits may be considered information in his broad definition of information, yet, when looked at carefully, Shannon information completely fails to explain the generation of functional information.

    The Evolution-Lobby’s Useless Definition of Biological Information – Feb. 2010
    Excerpt: By wrongly implying that Shannon information is the only “sense used by information theorists,” the NCSE avoids answering more difficult questions like how the information in biological systems becomes functional, or in its own words, “useful.”,,,Since biology is based upon functional information, Darwin-skeptics are interested in the far more important question of, Does neo-Darwinism explain how new functional biological information arises?
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....ss_de.html

    Three subsets of sequence complexity and their relevance to biopolymeric information – Abel, Trevors
    Excerpt: Shannon information theory measures the relative degrees of RSC and OSC. Shannon information theory cannot measure FSC. FSC is invariably associated with all forms of complex biofunction, including biochemical pathways, cycles, positive and negative feedback regulation, and homeostatic metabolism. The algorithmic programming of FSC, not merely its aperiodicity, accounts for biological organization. No empirical evidence exists of either RSC of OSC ever having produced a single instance of sophisticated biological organization. Organization invariably manifests FSC rather than successive random events (RSC) or low-informational self-ordering phenomena (OSC).
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm.....MC1208958/

    As well it is found that Claude Shannon’s work on ‘communication of information’ actually fully supports Intelligent Design as is illustrated in the following video and article:

    DNA and The Genetic Code Pt 3 – Perry Marshall – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtMQUFOwEFo

    Skeptic’s Objection to Information Theory #1:
    “DNA is Not a Code”
    http://cosmicfingerprints.com/dnanotcode.htm

  17. 17
    bornagain77 says:

    jurassimac you state:

    ‘Now, even though you’ve placed ‘complexity’ by itself on the other side of the “/” – I’m sure you don’t need me to explain how natural processes can produce complexity’

    well I put the slash there to indicate,,,

    functional information “and/or” complexity

    So sorry for not being more explicit, yet when I state that evolutionary processes have NEVER been observed generating functional complexity, I am in fact specifically referring to Behe’s work on the 2 protein/protein binding site limit in particular that he set that no one has falsified,,,,:

    Dr. Behe states in The Edge of Evolution on page 135:

    “Generating a single new cellular protein-protein binding site (in other words, generating a truly beneficial mutational event that would actually explain the generation of the complex molecular machinery we see in life) is of the same order of difficulty or worse than the development of chloroquine resistance in the malarial parasite.”

    That order of difficulty is put at 10^20 replications of the malarial parasite by Dr. Behe. This number comes from direct empirical observation.

    Richard Dawkins’ The Greatest Show on Earth Shies Away from Intelligent Design but Unwittingly Vindicates Michael Behe – Oct. 2009
    Excerpt: The rarity of chloroquine resistance is not in question. In fact, Behe’s statistic that it occurs only once in every 10^20 cases was derived from public health statistical data, published by an authority in the Journal of Clinical Investigation. The extreme rareness of chloroquine resistance is not a negotiable data point; it is an observed fact.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....est_s.html

    What does the recent hard evidence say about novel protein-protein binding site generation?

    “The likelihood of developing two binding sites in a protein complex would be the square of the probability of developing one: a double CCC (chloroquine complexity cluster), 10^20 times 10^20, which is 10^40. There have likely been fewer than 10^40 cells in the entire world in the past 4 billion years, so the odds are against a single event of this variety (just 2 binding sites being generated by accident) in the history of life. It is biologically unreasonable.” Michael J. Behe PhD. (from page 146 of his book “Edge of Evolution”)

    Nature Paper,, Finds Darwinian Processes Lacking – Michael Behe – Oct. 2009
    Excerpt: Now, thanks to the work of Bridgham et al (2009), even such apparently minor switches in structure and function (of a protein to its supposed ancestral form) are shown to be quite problematic. It seems Darwinian processes can’t manage to do even as much as I had thought. (which was 1 in 10^40 for just 2 binding sites)
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....hes_t.html

    The Sheer Lack Of Evidence For Macro Evolution – William Lane Craig – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4023134

    But jurassicmac the evidence you need to produce to even make neo-Darwinism a legitimate line of reasoning, instead of the dumbest idea ever taken seriously by science, goes far beyond just a couple of protein/protein binding sites that Behe has set for ‘the edge of evolution’. To gain respectability in my eyes, and hopefully anyone else who has yet to swallow Darwinian hogwash, would be on the order of generating a molecular machine by Darwinian processes:

    “There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system only a variety of wishful speculations. It is remarkable that Darwinism is accepted as a satisfactory explanation of such a vast subject.”
    James Shapiro – Molecular Biologist

    Articles and Videos on Molecular Motors
    http://docs.google.com/Doc?doc.....#038;hl=en

    Bacterial Flagellum – A Sheer Wonder Of Intelligent Design – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3994630

    Michael Behe on Falsifying Intelligent Design – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8jXXJN4o_A

    Biologist Howard Berg at Harvard calls the Bacterial Flagellum

    “the most efficient machine in the universe.”

    I don’t know jurassicmac, evolutionists jump up and down that Darwinism is as well established as gravity, and indeed I can release a ball from my hand and watch the expansion of space-time cause the ball to move towards the ground, yet I have yet to see any evidence whatsoever of something actually ‘evolving’ in the vertical sense of gaining functional complexity. I don’t know about you jurassicmac, but I sure ain’t impressed!!!

  18. 18
    jurassicmac says:

    bornagain77, I asked for 2 things:

    1. A definition of FCSI that is precise and concise

    2. A way to objectively quantify FCSI.

    An eight thousand, seven hundred character reply that is comprised mostly of copy and pasted quotes and links, most of which have absolutely nothing to do with defining CSI, is not ‘concise’ by any stretch of the imagination. Anyone can copy and paste the first few pages of a google search; I would like for you, or anyone else here to explain what FCSI, in your own words.

    I don’t feel that this is asking much. I would be happy to define, in my own words, any term that I bring up regarding evolutionary theory.

    The second thing: Please describe to me a way to objectively quantify FCSI. Or failing that, (which is usually the case) could someone tell me exactly, or even approximately, how much FCSI is in Human Chromosome 2? Or any other chromosome. Or any functional gene for that matter.

  19. 19
    jurassicmac says:

    Clive Hayden @ 10:

    I’m embarrassed by them, so now where are we?

    We’re stil a looooong way from ‘fear’ and ’embarrassment’ being the same thing.

  20. 20
    jurassicmac says:

    tgpeeler said in 8:

    “Natural processes (everything described by physics and chemistry) cannot create language or information.”

    I replied in 11:

    “What makes you think that?”

    To which Upright BiPed responded to in 13:

    Peeler can answer for himself, but I’ll bet it’s because its unequivocally true.

    Upright BiPed, In the words of Inigo Montoya: I do not think that word means what you think it means. Unequivocally means ‘without doubt.’ Many, many, things that can be described by physics and chemistry produce information. I mean, I at least expected someone to catch me out at the wording with “Sure, everyone knows natural things can produce information, but only {blah blah blah} can produce digital, functional, specified, complex information!”

    Since when is a clock a natural process? And if a clock in not a natural process, then what is it doing in your sentence other than creating a category error?

    A clock works according to natural precesses. No miracles are needed to explain how a clock works. A well made clock continues to work without intervention, or continual intelligent direction of any sort.

    Moreover, a clock produces no information, it simply has a mechanism for moving a needle around a marked dial with regularity – nothing more.

    What!!?? Seriously? A clock produces no information? Not even about the time? Or date? Why in blazes do we make clocks, if not to produce information about what time it is? What in the world would you call the numerical data that is perceived by a human observer to gain enlightenment about their local time?

    Information is the product of perception – and by no other means does it come into existence. For information to be produced using a clock requires a perceiver to perceive what the needle on the dial represents.

    This flat out contradicts what you just said. You say that if a perceiver perceives the clock, it does produce information. (about the TIME!) What happened to “a clock produces no information?” Do you guys just like to argue about everything, or is your cat jumping around on your keyboard again?

    The simplest natural thing can produce information. If I were to awake in a metal room with nothing but a rock floating in front of me, the rock convey information that I was in a zero-gravity environment.

    Tree rings, things that are formed naturally, contain the information of the age of the tree.

    Likewise, rock strata, sediments that are laid in order by completely blind, undirected geological processes contain information about their relative age, past floods, etc.

    Please, no more nonsense like “natural processes cannot create information.” At least stick with the party line that natural processes can create ‘simple’ information, but they cannot create digital, functional, complex, specified, information.

    (Though feel free to not define or quantify that term in any way in which it could be falsified; or else you may have to add more letters to it)

  21. 21
    gpuccio says:

    jurassicmac:

    I asked for 2 things:

    1. A definition of FCSI that is precise and concise

    2. A way to objectively quantify FCSI.

    I have given the definition of dFSCI hundreds of times, I think (maybe even to you). Look, just as an example, here:

    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-362111

    For quantification of functional information in protein families, just look at the Durston paper:

    http://www.tbiomed.com/content.....2-4-47.pdf

    You get 35 different measures, from:

    ankyrin: 46 Fits

    to

    ACR Tran 1650 Fits.

  22. 22
    gpuccio says:

    jurassicmac:

    I’ll be the one! 🙂

    “Sure, everyone knows natural things can produce information, but only {blah blah blah} can produce digital, functional, specified, complex information”

    Where, obviously, {blah blah blah} is {conscious intelligent beings}.

  23. 23
    gpuccio says:

    jurassicmac:

    Frankly, I don’t think O have any more letters to add. Is dFSCI too much for you?

  24. 24
    bornagain77 says:

    jurassicmac you asked for a concise definition of functional information. I gave you a direct link to a paper that does exactly that for any functional sequence (gene or protein, or even the letters you are writing on this post). gpuccio, graciously, will walk you through it in excruciating detail, as he has done many times before for other Darwinists, and I am amazed at his patience in the face of such sheer unreasonableness on the Darwinists part. ,,, Yet why in blue blazes are you ignoring the fact that is so crystal clear???,,, neo-Darwinian evolution has not generated any functional information, and you will not be able to produce any evidence for it doing so. But more to the point jurassicmac, neo-Darwinian evolution has NEVER demonstrated the production of even one molecular machine, of which the cell is chuck full of them. So please tell me exactly why I should believe that evolution produced all the life we see around us when it can’t even manage to pass this most trivial test on the molecular level??? And please tell me exactly what is the payoff for you, and other Darwinists, to so adamantly (or is that vehemently) defend something that is of absolutely use to you. Seriously I have seen a level of blind faith from Darwinists that would make suicide bombers blush!!! But at least the bombers think they are going to heaven, but Darwinists they don’t even think that!,,, The payoff for Darwinists blind faith is,,,, NOTHINGNESS!!!! ,,,I just don’t get it,,, I don’t know jurassicmac you can throw you life away on a lie if you want, this is America,, but I certainly think you should consider the truth of Christianity before you do throw your life away any further on that lie… for the payoff for Christianity,, which I hold, unlike neo-Darwinism. to be verifiably true,,, is certainly a lot better nothingness.

    In The Presence Of Almighty God – The Near Death Experience of Mickey Robinson – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4045544

  25. 25
    gpuccio says:

    jurassicmac:

    for your convenience (and I suppose, to really deserve BA’s comments about my patience 🙂 ) here is a very concise definition of dFSCI:

    1) Any string of digital information

    2) which conveys the information for an explicitly defined function

    3) which is in a non compressible or scarcely compressible form

    4) whose complexity (ratio of the functional space to the search space) expressed in bits (like in Shannon’s information) is higher than a certain threshold, appropriately chosen for each specific context (I have suggested 150 bits for a generic biological context on our planet)

    5) is dFSCI.

    Is that clear and concise enough?

  26. 26
    gpuccio says:

    warehuff:

    just out of curiosity: what is the difference between “directed” and “guided”? And between “undirected” and “unguided”. I probably miss some subtle connotation…

    In your example, the gardener, IMO, “directs” the growth of the tree, which cannot be any more defined “undirected”. It is undirected only before the gardener acts. After, it is designed.

  27. 27
    tgpeeler says:

    jurassicmac – aha! the old “Well what IS information, exactly?” gambit. I’ll make this easy on you. You give me a definition and we’ll go from there.

  28. 28
    StephenB says:

    —jarrasicmac: “Gil, I agree with you that it doesn’t make any sense to say that ‘God guided darwinian evolution.’ But that certainly doesn’t rule out the idea that God intended the results of darwinian evolution.”

    If God intended it, then it cannot, by definition, be Darwinian.

    —“There is no reason to think an omnipotent being couldn’t set up the proper initial conditions for a universe in which evolution not only occurs, but also produces intelligent creatures, and not have to fiddle around with the process after it is started.”

    Such an evolution would produce a result in conformity with the intentions of the omnipotent being. Unlike Darwinianism, which doesn’t know where it is going or what results it will produce, guided or programmed evolution would unfold according to a plan. In other words, planned evolution is teleological; unplanned evolution is non-teleological. Darwinistic evolution is non-teleological, which means that it was unguided, unplanned, or unprogrammed. Put yet another way, Darwinistic evolution “emerges” with a surprise outcome, producing new effects that were not present in the cause; planned evolution “unfolds” into an intended outcome, producing effects that were already inherent in the cause. Theistic evolutionsts, to the extent that they can even think at all, hold that evolution is both teleological and non-teleological, that is was both planned and unplanned, that the outcome was both indended and was also a surprise, and that the effects were inherent in the cause and yet were not inherent in the cause. It is a totally schizophrenic and irrational world view.

  29. 29
    Cabal says:

    neo-Darwinian evolution has not generated any functional information, and you will not be able to produce any evidence for it doing so.

    I presume you can provide some evidence for how and by what alternative mechanism functional information is generated? That’s all it takes to get rid of ‘Darwinism’ forever.

  30. 30
    bornagain77 says:

    Cabal, this is funny, you write this functional information,

    ‘I presume you can provide some evidence for how and by what alternative mechanism functional information is generated? That’s all it takes to get rid of ‘Darwinism’ forever.’

    since that short paragraph of yours actually exceeds the amount of functional information that anyone has ever seen generated by purely evolutionary, or material, processes, I will thus I submit your very own post as a shining example for a ‘alternative mechanism for functional information being generated; Namely Intelligence!

  31. 31
    jurassicmac says:

    gpuccio @ 25

    I sincerely thank you. All I’ve wanted for a long time is a precise definition like that. Now we’re getting somewhere.

    Can you also tell me how to quantify it, or provide examples of cases in which it’s already been quantified?

  32. 32
    warehuff says:

    Gil, gpuccio and the group: I see theistic evolution working something like this: God decides that he wants someone to talk to, so he either goes back a few million years and starts life going or just lets life start by itself. Evolution proceeds undirected to the point where God looks down and sees some semi-intelligent creatures like the great apes walking the earth.

    God notes that these apes are almost human. Their bodies have every single organ that a human has and just need some tuning to be acceptably human – lose the hair, make the brain bigger, flatten the face, etc.

    They’re already very intelligent, comparable to a three or four year old human in most respects and much smarter in many others. (Release a group of four year old chimps into one jungle and four year old humans into another and see which group is still alive in one year.)

    God glances at the ape DNA and notes that it differs from human DNA by only a percent or two and most of the differences are “noise”, which has no discernible effect and can be ignored.

    So God changes a few hundred or a few thousand key DNA base-pairs over a few thousand generations and voila, God has used Intelligent Design to transform some apes into humans.

    This is what most theistic evolutionists mean by theistic evolution: Darwinian evolution does the dirty work, creating the vast assortment of living creatures we see today while God just “tweaks” some DNA here and there to “fine tune” a species to make it exactly the way he wants it.

    I really don’t understand why ID is so hostile to theistic evolution. It’s an excellent way to do Intelligent Design. Let evolution do the dirty work and just Design the fiddly bits.

    The scientists are happy because evolution works as advertised, Christians are generally happy because God made us after all, ID theorists should be happy because Theistic Evolution means that we are Intelligently Designed – the only ones I can see who should be disappointed are Biblical Literalists because there’s no Adam and Eve or Garden of Eden, but geology killed those off long before Darwin published “Origin of Species”.

  33. 33
    bornagain77 says:

    warehuff, the problem with your ‘can’t everybody just get along scenario’ is that Theistic evolutionists will not admit that the design found in life is detectable, and end up being in bed with the neo-Darwinists, whereas IDists are clear about the fact that the design found in life is detectable, can be separated from the material processes of the universe.

    As far as you saying geology killed off Adam and Eve,,, I’m afraid genetics has fully resurrected them:

    Human Evolution? – The Compelling Genetic & Fossil Evidence For Adam and Eve – Dr. Fazale Rana – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4284482

  34. 34
    CannuckianYankee says:

    Darwinist1: What’s this?

    Darwinist2: Some new Creationism called ID. Supposed to be different.

    Darwinist1: You try it?

    Darwinist2: I’m not gonna try it; you try it.

    Darwinist1: Hey. Let’s get Richie (Dawkins)!

    Darwinist2: He won’t try it. He hates everything.

    Darwinist1 (watching Dawkins): He’s running away! Hey Richie!

    Seriously though. If Darwinists truly did not fear ID they wouldn’t need to re-label it as “Creationism.”
    They re-label it because they are comfortable with it that way. It’s no longer a threat as long as they can view it as something benign – something the courts have already dealt with – something they’ve already refuted – something with a tarnished history – something that only crazy people believe.

    This is why we must continue to insist that ID is not Creationism; that they must deal with it. It doesn’t have a history that they can simply dismiss. It hasn’t been dealt with in the courts (Dover was a joke), and it continues to gain ground. And above all, they’ve done nothing so far to refute it.

  35. 35
    vividbleau says:

    RE 32

    ware “I really don’t understand why ID is so hostile to theistic evolution. It’s an excellent way to do Intelligent Design. Let evolution do the dirty work and just Design the fiddly bits.”

    I can think of several reasons. 1) There is absolutely no evidence to support Darwinist’s grand claim. 2) ID is about design detection not theology. Like the creationists TE’s start from a theological premise and then make science conform to their theology.

    I have always thought that TE was flawed from the start since it started from a misplaced acceptance of Dawinism. If Darwinist’s grand claim is false then TE is superfluous. TE is married to Darwinism, it falls their theology falls. Its not surprising that TE’s are opponets of ID, their theology rests on ID’s demise.

    Vivid

  36. 36
    jurassicmac says:

    Warehuf @ 32:

    Gil, gpuccio and the group: I see theistic evolution working something like this: God decides that he wants someone to talk to, so he either goes back a few million years and starts life going or just lets life start by itself. Evolution proceeds undirected to the point where God looks down and sees some semi-intelligent creatures like the great apes walking the earth.

    This is why I don’t call myself a theistic evolutionist even though I’m a Christian who accepts evolution; The term has a reputation of being as pandering and contradictory as your description makes it out to be.

    God glances at the ape DNA and notes that it differs from human DNA by only a percent or two and most of the differences are “noise”, which has no discernible effect and can be ignored. So God changes a few hundred or a few thousand key DNA base-pairs over a few thousand generations and voila, God has used Intelligent Design to transform some apes into humans.

    Now here’s my (our) question. If natural processes could account for 99.99% of the formation of humans over a certain period of time, why in the world do you need to invoke miraculous intervention to explain the other 0.01%? If natural processes can get you 99.99 percent of the way in 3 billion years, why not wait a few hundred thousand more years for them to finish the job? Is God just impatient? This is irrelevant to the discussion, but if God has to ‘go back a few million years,’ doesn’t to do something differently, doesn’t that mean he can’t see the future, or that he regretted a decision because of an oversight or error?

    Are you a theist yourself, or are you just contorting evolutionary theory to make it palatable to the religious?

    This is what most theistic evolutionists mean by theistic evolution: Darwinian evolution does the dirty work, creating the vast assortment of living creatures we see today while God just “tweaks” some DNA here and there to “fine tune” a species to make it exactly the way he wants it.

    If there is any divine tinkering required as an explanation, then it is not Darwinian evolution! I think even the IDers here would agree with that. What you have just described is ID to a t; its just ID that accepts common ancestry. (Like Michael Behe’s view)

    I really don’t understand why ID is so hostile to theistic evolution. It’s an excellent way to do Intelligent Design. Let evolution do the dirty work and just Design the fiddly bits.

    ID isn’t hostile to theistic evolution as you’ve described it; by your definition, it is ID.

    The scientists are happy because evolution works as advertised,

    No it does not. If you have to invoke a miracle in your explanation, It is not science at all.

    Christians are generally happy because God made us after all, ID theorists should be happy because Theistic Evolution means that we are Intelligently Designed – the only ones I can see who should be disappointed are Biblical Literalists

    I’ve got an idea! let’s say that heliocentricity is halfway true: That way, astronomers are happy because we throw them a bone that observation based on empirical evidence is a valid way to find things out, and the Christians who take Psalms 93:1 literally are happy because we work in the word ‘God’ somehow.

  37. 37
    jurassicmac says:

    gpuccio @ 21, Saw your link on quantification, I will read it at my earliest convenience. Thanks for the reply.

  38. 38
    jurassicmac says:

    bornagain77 @ 24:

    I just don’t get it,,, I don’t know jurassicmac you can throw you life away on a lie if you want, this is America,, but I certainly think you should consider the truth of Christianity before you do throw your life away any further on that lie… for the payoff for Christianity,, which I hold, unlike neo-Darwinism. to be verifiably true,,, is certainly a lot better nothingness.

    My goodness you’re full of assumptions! I happen to be a devout Christian, have been my entire adult life. I used to be a young earth creationist as well. Since you seem not to have been aware of my religious beliefs, It’s odd that you think someone is ‘throwing their’ life away simply because they accept one particular explanation of biological diversity. I can’t really comprehend that view. Though I don’t really appreciate when people make assumptions about me, I don’t loose any sleep over it. It really just makes them look foolish and presumptuous. My one beef with your statement is is when you say the ‘payoff for Christianity’ (by which you seem to mean Heaven) is verifiable; if that’s the case I’m not sure you know what ‘verifiable’ means. If you meant something else like ‘happiness’ or ‘contentment’, those things are not exclusive to Christianity by any stretch of the imagination.

    In the future, I would just recommend being on guard about assuming that you know why a person believes the way they do; it’s awfully annoying to hear a dime-store Freud psycho-analyzing you without knowing the first thing about you.

  39. 39
    jurassicmac says:

    jtgpeeler @ 27:

    jurassicmac – aha! the old “Well what IS information, exactly?” gambit. I’ll make this easy on you. You give me a definition and we’ll go from there.

    Uh, “What is information?” isn’t a gambit; it’s an honest question. You are the one making the claim that a very specific type of information can’t arise naturally; the onus is on you to define that specific type of information, (like gpuccio has done) because as far as I can tell, the debate isn’t about information per se, but FCSI.

    If I tell you that life contains blorbyblast, and that blorbyblast can’t occur naturally, and you then ask me to define blorbyblast, I can’t say: “you give me a definition and we’ll go from there.”

  40. 40
    MathGrrl says:

    gpuccio,

    The thread in which we’re discussing CSI is now off the main page and getting harder to find. I hope you don’t mind me jumping in here to continue it.

    here is a very concise definition of dFSCI:

    1) Any string of digital information

    I believe the ‘I’ in dFSCI, and know that the ‘I’ in CSI, stands for “information”. You’re using part of your term to define it.

    When you say “digital information” here, do you mean one of the standard measurements such as Shannon Information, or something else?

    2) which conveys the information for an explicitly defined function

    Continuing on from the other thread, how can this function be unambiguously defined? I suggested that the ability to digest citrate that evolved in Lenski’s experiment met this criteria, but you disagreed. This characteristic requires more detail.

    3) which is in a non compressible or scarcely compressible form

    Why? What does the compressibility of whatever you mean by “string of digital information” have to do with the calculation of CSI?

    4) whose complexity (ratio of the functional space to the search space) expressed in bits (like in Shannon’s information) is higher than a certain threshold, appropriately chosen for each specific context (I have suggested 150 bits for a generic biological context on our planet)

    Why 150 bits rather than 10 or 1E6?

    You mention Shannon Information here again. Previously you have said that CSI is not Shannon Information, but this suggests that Shannon Information is a synonym. Which is it?

    If it were shown that evolutionary mechanisms could create Shannon Information, would you concede that those same mechanisms could create CSI?

    A step-by-step worked example of how to calculate CSI for either the immune system (references to the literature are available in the other thread) or for something like the ID mascot bacterial flagellum would address a lot of these questions and prove that CSI is, in fact, an objective, measurable quantity.

  41. 41
    Upright BiPed says:

    J’mac at #20

    Your category error remains embedded in your comments. In extended your unshakable belief that natural processes can produce information, you say:

    Many, many, things that can be described by physics and chemistry produce information.

    While it is true that we use the Laws of Physics to explain the material world, it is not those laws that are doing the explaining – we are. This is the point that you are missing.

    Everything we know about the cosmos (all information) is created by our ability to perceive it through our senses. Without exception this is true.

    Lets us look at it this way. Let us say that you are a mad chemist in his lab, and for the very first time in cosmic history you took a highly-refined material constituent “A” and mixed it with a very unstable material constituent “B” and heated them in a vacuum, in a centrifuge, under the effects of a massive magnetic field. Let us say further that all the sudden the lights in you lab dim and something incredible happens. Something never seen before; something that will cause a new law to be written into our book of knowledge of the cosmos. Congratulations.

    Here is the point. Did mankind’s information of the cosmos suddenly increase because of the chemical reaction which happened in your lab? Is that when this new information was created and began to exist – at the instant the reaction took place?

    Or, did this information begin to exist when you (the mad chemist you are) perceive, describe, and record it for others to know?

    It seems fairly certain that the reaction did not create the information, you did. So returning to your comment that I might not understand the meaning of the word “unequivocal”, Yes, I do understand it. There is no information in the cosmos that exist without first being perceived. That’s just the way it works. Information is the product of perception.

    – – – – – – –

    I then questioned why you would use a man-made clock as an example of a natural process. You replied:

    A clock works according to natural precesses. No miracles are needed to explain how a clock works.

    Completely true. So what? The point remains that a clock is not a natural process. It’s a category error.

    – – – – – – – –

    I then remind you that a clock does not produce information. All a clock does is rotate a needle around a marked dial with precise regularity. You responded:

    What!!?? Seriously? A clock produces no information? Not even about the time? Or date? Why in blazes do we make clocks, if not to produce information about what time it is?

    A clock produces information? Turn your back to a clock and inform me what time it is.

    What in the world would you call the numerical data that is perceived by a human observer to gain enlightenment about their local time?

    I would call it the time of day. But the clock did not produce the information; the observer did by observing the needle he had created in relation the dial he had placed behind the needle.

    Allow me to ask you a question. Let us say that I quickly glance over at the clock and see that it is 3:00pm. However, I had been mistaken; it was really 2:00pm. Did the clock produce misinformation? Or, did I? Who produces the information, me or the clock?

    Allow me to offer you a local colloquialism which is perhaps appropriate to your current predicament: “When the horse is dead, get off.”

  42. 42
    bornagain77 says:

    jurassicmac, I am sorry for confusing you with the hundreds of dogmatic atheists that I have dealt with over the years. Perhaps you can forgive me for thinking you were a dogmatic atheist since you are asking basically the same questions, and asserting the same things as they. Somehow that old question that preacher asked me, that really made me think, comes to mind in your case though,, “If you were on trial for being a Christian would they find enough evidence to convict?”,,,. That you accepted Christ into your life as your savior is wonderful news since He truly is who He says He is..

    You chide me in my statement about Christianity being verifiably true as if I meant merely contentment and such,, and then try to denigrate ‘contentment’ by saying it could be found elsewhere.,,, Again I’m asking,,, would they find enough evidence to convict you jurassicmac?

    When I said Christianity is verifiably true, besides anything like the subjective experience you derided of the personal witness of millions who have felt and seen Christ move in their lives, I mainly meant that the primary claim of Christ defeating death on the cross is verifiably true:

    Consider these quotes:

    A British agnostic once said “let’s not discuss the other miracles; let’s discuss the resurrection. Because if the resurrection is true, then the other miracles are easily explained; and if the resurrection is not true, the other miracles do not matter.”

    Sir Edward Clark — a prominent lawyer in Great Britain “As a lawyer, I have made a prolonged study of the evidences for the resurrection of Jesus Christ. To me, the evidence is conclusive; and over and over again in the high court, I have secured the verdict on evidence not nearly so compelling. The Gospel evidence for the resurrection I accept unreservedly as the testimony of truthful men to facts that they were able to substantiate.”

    Canon Westcott — for years a brilliant scholar at Cambridge University “Indeed, taking all the evidence together, it is not too much to say that there is no historic incident better or more variously supported than the resurrection of Christ. Nothing but the antecedent assumption that it must be false could have suggested the idea of deficiency in the proof of it.”

    Thomas Arnold — Professor of History at Oxford University; author of a 3-volume history on ancient Rome “I have been used for many years to study the history of other times, and to examine and weigh the evidence of those who have written about them; and I know of no fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair inquirer, than that Christ died and rose again from the dead.”
    http://www.awordfromtheword.org/what-if.htm

    But of course jurassicmac my favorite evidence is the Shroud of Turin itself since that puts us in the tomb of Christ at the time of the resurrection:

    notes:

    The fact is that, as I’ve heard said by many preachers before, you can go to the graves of all the other founders of all the other major religions of the world and find the remains of a body, yet, as the Shroud of Turin stubbornly testifies despite many attempts to refute the Shroud’s authenticity, if you go to the tomb of Jesus you will not find the remains of a body because Jesus has risen from the dead.

    Matthew 28:5-6
    The angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay.

    Burial places of founders of world religions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B....._religions

    The Shroud of Turin is one of the most scientifically scrutinized artifacts in recorded history. Through a rigid process of elimination, through all materialistic possibilities, it becomes crystal clear; the way in which the photographic negative, and uniquely three dimensional, image of the man on the Shroud of Turin had to be imprinted was ‘supernatural’ in its process.

    The Turin Shroud – Comparing Image And Photographic Negative – interactive webpage (Of note: The finding that the image on the Shroud is indeed a photographic negative is still as much a mystery today as when it was first discovered by Secondo Pia in 1898.)
    http://www.shroud.com/shrdface.htm

    Shroud Of Turin’s Unique 3 Dimensionality – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4041182

    All attempts to reproduce the Shroud fail:

    Experts Question Scientist’s Claim of Reproducing Shroud of Turin – Oct 6, 2009
    http://www.ewtn.com/vnews/gets.....ber=98037#

    Many solid lines of evidence pointed to the Shroud’s authenticity back in the 1980’s, yet the carbon dating of 1989 indicated a medieval age. In spite of many other, more reliable, lines of evidence establishing the Shroud as authentic, many people unquestionably accepted the carbon dating as valid and presumed the Shroud to be a medieval fake.

    THE SHROUD AS AN ANCIENT TEXTILE – Evidence of Authenticity
    http://www.newgeology.us/presentation24.html

    Shroud Of Turin – Sewn From Two Pieces – 2000 Years Old – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4109101

    The Sudarium of Oviedo
    http://www.shroudstory.com/sudarium.htm

    Russ Breault – Shroud Video Library
    http://www.shrouduniversity.com/libraryvideo.php

  43. 43
    bornagain77 says:

    further notes jurassicmac:

    In a fairly recent breakthrough, the carbon dating question has been thoroughly addressed and refuted by Joseph G. Marino and M. Sue Benford in 2000. Their research, with textile experts, showing the carbon testing was done with a piece of the Shroud which was subject to expert medieval reweaving in the 1500’s had much historical, and photographic, evidence behind it. Their historical, and photographic, evidence was then scientifically confirmed by chemical analysis in 2005 by Raymond Rogers. Thus, the fact that a false age was shown by the 1989 carbon testing has been accepted across the board scientifically.

    New Evidence Overturns Shroud Of Turin Carbon Dating – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4222339

    The following is the main peer reviewed paper which has refuted the 1989 Carbon Dating:

    Why The Carbon 14 Samples Are Invalid, Raymond Rogers
    per: Thermochimica Acta (Volume 425 pages 189-194, Los Alamos National Laboratory, University of California)
    Excerpt: Preliminary estimates of the kinetics constants for the loss of vanillin from lignin indicate a much older age for the cloth than the radiocarbon analyses. The radiocarbon sampling area is uniquely coated with a yellow–brown plant gum containing dye lakes. Pyrolysis-mass-spectrometry results from the sample area coupled with microscopic and microchemical observations prove that the radiocarbon sample was not part of the original cloth of the Shroud of Turin. The radiocarbon date was thus not valid for determining the true age of the shroud. The fact that vanillin can not be detected in the lignin on shroud fibers, Dead Sea scrolls linen, and other very old linens indicates that the shroud is quite old. A determination of the kinetics of vanillin loss suggests that the shroud is between 1300- and 3000-years old. Even allowing for errors in the measurements and assumptions about storage conditions, the cloth is unlikely to be as young as 840 years.
    http://www.ntskeptics.org/issu.....oudold.htm

    Rogers passed away shortly after publishing this paper, but his work was ultimately verified by the Los Alamos National Laboratory:

    Carbon Dating Of The Turin Shroud Completely Overturned by Scientific Peer Review
    Rogers also asked John Brown, a materials forensic expert from Georgia Tech to confirm his finding using different methods. Brown did so. He also concluded that the shroud had been mended with newer material. Since then, a team of nine scientists at Los Alamos has also confirmed Rogers work, also with different methods and procedures. Much of this new information has been recently published in Chemistry Today.
    http://shroudofturin.wordpress.....s-of-time/

    This following is the Los Alamos National Laboratory report and video which completely confirms the Rogers’ paper:

    “Analytical Results on Thread Samples Taken from the Raes Sampling Area (Corner) of the Shroud Cloth” (Aug 2008)
    Excerpt: The age-dating process failed to recognize one of the first rules of analytical chemistry that any sample taken for characterization of an area or population must necessarily be representative of the whole. The part must be representative of the whole. Our analyses of the three thread samples taken from the Raes and C-14 sampling corner showed that this was not the case……. LANL’s work confirms the research published in Thermochimica Acta (Jan. 2005) by the late Raymond Rogers, a chemist who had studied actual C-14 samples and concluded the sample was not part of the original cloth possibly due to the area having been repaired. – Robert Villarreal
    http://www.ohioshroudconference.com/

    Shroud Of Turin Carbon Dating Overturned By Scientific Peer Review – Robert Villarreal – Press Release video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4041193

    Now that the flawed carbon dating is finally brought into line, all major lines of evidence now converge and establish the Shroud as authentic. This rigidly tested, and scrutinized, artifact establishes the uniqueness of the Shroud among all ancient artifacts of man found on earth. I know of no other ancient artifact, from any other culture, which has withstood such intense scrutiny and still remained standing in its claim of divine origin. It is apparent God thought this event so important for us to remember that He took a “photograph” of the resurrection of Jesus Christ using the Shroud itself as a medium. After years of painstaking research, searching through every materialistic possibility, scientists still cannot tell us exactly how the image of the man on the Shroud was imprinted.

    How Did The Image Form On The Shroud? – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4045581

    “The shroud image is made from tiny fibres that are (each) 1/10th of a human hair. The picture elements are actually randomly distributed like the dots in your newspaper, photograph or magazine photograph. To do this you would need an incredibly accurate atomic laser. This technology does NOT exist (even to this day).” – Kevin Moran – Optical Engineer

    “the closest science can come to explaining how the image of the Man in the Shroud got there is by comparing the situation to a controlled burst of high-intensity radiation similar to the Hiroshima bomb explosion which “printed” images of incinerated people on building walls.”
    Frank Tribbe – Leading Scholar And Author On Shroud Research

    This following video, which I’ve listed previously, and article give fairly deep insight into what the image formation on the Shroud signifies for us:

    The Center Of The Universe Is Life! – General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and The Shroud Of Turin – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/w/5070355

    A Quantum Hologram of Christ’s Resurrection?
    http://www.khouse.org/articles/2008/847

  44. 44
    bornagain77 says:

    further notes jurassicmac:

    This following recent video revealed a very surprising holographic image that was found on the Shroud:

    Turin Shroud Hologram Reveals The Words ‘The Lamb’ – short video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4041205

    Even with the advantage of all our advanced space-age technology at their fingertips, all scientists can guess is that it was some type of electro-magnetic radiation (light) which is not natural to this world. Kevin Moran, a scientist working on the mysterious ‘3D’ nature of the Shroud image, states the ‘supernatural’ explanation this way:

    “It is not a continuum or spherical-front radiation that made the image, as visible or UV light. It is not the X-ray radiation that obeys the one over R squared law that we are so accustomed to in medicine. It is more unique. It is suggested that the image was formed when a high-energy particle struck the fiber and released radiation within the fiber at a speed greater that the local speed of light. Since the fiber acts as a light pipe, this energy moved out through the fiber until it encountered an optical discontinuity, then it slowed to the local speed of light and dispersed. The fact that the pixels don’t fluoresce suggests that the conversion to their now brittle dehydrated state occurred instantly and completely so no partial products remain to be activated by the ultraviolet light. This suggests a quantum event where a finite amount of energy transferred abruptly. The fact that there are images front and back suggests the radiating particles were released along the gravity vector. The radiation pressure may also help explain why the blood was “lifted cleanly” from the body as it transformed to a resurrected state.”
    http://www.shroudstory.com/natural.htm

    If scientists want to find the source for the supernatural light which made the “3D – photographic negative” image I suggest they look to the thousands of documented Near-Death Experiences (NDE’s) in Judeo-Christian cultures. It is in their testimonies that you will find mention of an indescribably bright ‘Light’ or ‘Being of Light’ who is always described as being of a much brighter intensity of light than the people had ever seen before. All people who have been in the presence of ‘The Being of Light’ while having a deep NDE have no doubt whatsoever that the ‘The Being of Light’ they were in the presence of is none other than ‘The Lord God Almighty’ of heaven and earth.

    In The Presence Of Almighty God – The NDE of Mickey Robinson – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4045544

    The Day I Died – Part 4 of 6 – The Extremely ‘Monitored’ Near Death Experience of Pam Reynolds – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4045560

    The Scientific Evidence for Near Death Experiences – Dr Jeffery Long – Melvin Morse M.D. – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4454627

    It should be noted: All foreign, non-Judeo-Christian culture, NDE studies I have looked at have a extreme rarity of encounters with ‘The Being Of Light’ and tend to be very unpleasant NDE’s save for the few pleasant children’s NDEs of those cultures that I’ve seen (It seems there is indeed an ‘age of accountability’). The following study was shocking for what was found in some non-Judeo-Christian NDE’s:

    Near-Death Experiences in Thailand – Todd Murphy:
    Excerpt:The Light seems to be absent in Thai NDEs. So is the profound positive affect found in so many Western NDEs. The most common affect in our collection is negative. Unlike the negative affect in so many Western NDEs (cf. Greyson & Bush, 1992), that found in Thai NDEs (in all but case #11) has two recognizable causes. The first is fear of ‘going’. The second is horror and fear of hell. It is worth noting that although half of our collection include seeing hell (cases 2,6,7,9,10) and being forced to witness horrific tortures, not one includes the NDEer having been subjected to these torments themselves.
    http://www.shaktitechnology.com/thaindes.htm

    Another very interesting point about the Shroud is, since the Shroud had to be extremely close to the body when the image was made, and also considering the lack of any distinctive shadow patterns on the image, it is apparent the only place this supernatural light could have possibly come from, that made the image on the Shroud, was directly from the body itself ! Yes, you read that last sentence right:

    THE SOURCE OF LIGHT WAS THE BODY ITSELF !!!

    God’s crowning achievement for this universe was not when He created this universe. God’s crowning achievement for this universe was when He Himself inhabited the human body He had purposely created the whole universe for, to sanctify human beings unto Himself through the death and resurrection of his “Son” Jesus Christ. This is truly something which should fill anyone who reads this with awe. The wonder of it all is something I can scarcely begin to understand much less write about. Thus, I will finish this portion of my paper with a scripture.

    Hebrews 2:14-15
    “Since we, God’s children, are human beings – made of flesh and blood – He became flesh and blood too by being born in human form; for only as a human being could He die and in dying break the power of the devil who had the power of death. Only in that way could He deliver those who through fear of death have been living all their lives as slaves to constant dread.”

    ——————-
    He’s Alive – Dolly Parton – 1989 CMA – music video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbRPWUHM80M

    jurassicmac that ism what I meant by verfiably true.

  45. 45
    andrewjg says:

    @BA

    You can add Sir Lionel Luckhoo. A British lawyer knighted for his work. He won 245 consecutive cases. He said, “I humbly add I have spent more than 42 years as a defense trial lawyer appearing in many parts of the world and am still in active practice. I have been fortunate to secure a number of successes in jury trials and I say unequivocally the evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ is so overwhelming that it compels acceptance by proof which leaves absolutely no room for doubt.”

    There is Simon Greenleaf who was one of the founders of the Harvard Law School who wrote the book “A Treatise on the Law of Evidence”. He was an atheist until some students challenged him to examine the evidence for the resurrection of Christ. In his book “Testimony of the Evangelicals” he wrote, “Let [the Gospel’s] testimony be sifted, as it were given in a court of justice on the side of the adverse party, the witness being subjected to a rigorous cross-examination. The result, it is confidently believed, will be an undoubting conviction of their integrity, ability, and truth.”

  46. 46
    gpuccio says:

    MathGrrl:

    dFSCI is a subset of CSI. CSI is all kind of complex specified information. For our biological discussion, I prefer to use the subset of dFSCI, which can be easier to discuss. Nothing is lost in that, because protein coding genes and proteins, which are the sbject of my discussion, are both dFSC.

    d is for digital. I mean by that that we are observing information in the form of a digital string. I don’t think I have to argue that both the sequence of nucleotides in a protein coding gene and the sequence of AAs in a protein are digital strings of information, the one in a base 4 alphabet with words of 3 characters, the second in a base 20 alphabet. They are two forms of the same information, cnnected by the redundant genetic code. For convenience, I ususally debate proteins.

    FS is for functionally specified. My definition for that is that a conscious intelligent observer must recognize a function and define it explicitly, giving also a quantitative method to asses its presence or absence. You say that different persons can define different functions. That’s not a problem, The functional information is always expressed for an explicit function, and not in absolute. So the definiton of the function is part of the measurement.

    We have to be careful, anyway, that the function is defined in a way that it is really performed by the object or system we are analyzing, and it must be possible in some way to measure the information necessary for the function. That’s why, in the case of Lenski, I have insisted that we had to define the function arisen in the mutation, and only that, and at the same time know at biochemical level the details of its implementation. So, if it is true (I really don’t know) that the only modification in the case of Lenski was a modification in permeability to citrate, and not in other biochemical activities, that is the function arisen in the transition, and the protein or proteins mutated are the object or objects on which the computation of the dFSC of the transition must be done. Defining the new function as “the ability to digest citrate” is just too vague and generic and imprecise, because indeed that ability is the sum of different biochemical activities, like the Krebs cycle, which have probably not varied in the transition. I hope that is clear.

    The necessity of being clear and explicit in defining the function is one of the reasons why I never try to apply, at least at the level that ID is at present, the concept of dFSCI to whole biological systems, and I apply it only to single proteins, or better still to single protein domains. Those are the functional units in the proteome. Discussing more complex systems is infinitely more difficult, and had no sense, until we have clarified the essentials at protein level. This has always been my position.

    Moreover, for most proteins the function is well known, and, as I have often said, is alredy explicitly defined in protein databases. Therefore, I don’t see what are the problems about the functional specification. For most known proteins, the functional specification is already there.

    C is for complex, and I for information. The concept of information in Shannon’s theory is, as all know well, more a measure of complexity. Indeed, as all know, Shannon’s theory is not about information, but about data transmission. I mean that we can measure the complexity of a string, but that measurement has nothing to do with the “meaning” of that string. Indeed, random strings have ususally the highest complexity, because they are not compressible and they have the highest uncertainty.

    The important point is that protein sequences are mostly pseudo random sequences. This too is well known: they are scarcely compressible, and they cannot be generated by any simpler algorithm.

    You ask why the non compressibility is important for dFSCI. The answer is that it is a good way to ensure that the string is not the result of some necessity mechanism.

    Let’s make an example. If we have a string of 300 “A”, the Kolmogorov complexity of that string is much lower than the mere complexity of it. THat kind if string can well be the product of a necessity mechanism.

    In the same way, if we have a protein of 300 glycins, even if it could have a function (which I doubt), it would not be dFSCI, because highly compressible. IOW, that string could easily arise in a biochemical system where only the glycin is available, for instance. That would be a simple necessity mechanism.

    Therfore, it is important that the string we analyze be a truly pseudo-random string, otherwise a necessity mechanism cannot be ruled out.

    Proteins vastly satisfy that requisite. Even if in theory they can have some minimal compressibility, functional proteins have a primary sequence which is related only to the functions of the final, folded molecule. The relationship between that sequence and the final biochemical structure is so complex that at present we cannot really compute one from the other, not even by the most powerful computing resources. That’s why, to all effects, the sequence of proteins is pseudo random and practically non compressible. IOW, teir is no way to generate the sequence of a protein for a function through an algoritm. And if and when it will be possible, the algorithm will certainly be much more complex than the sequence itself.

    I hope that clarifies the aspect of compressibility.

    Let’s go to the threshold. You ask why one and not another.

    The threshold is conventionally established. And it can vary in different contexts.

    Why? Because the only purpose of the threshold is to make the measurement of dFSCI useful to analyze an object (for instance a protein) and decide if it can be generated by a random model, or by a model that in part includes random steps.

    So, the threshold must be high enough to empirically exclude the random emergence of the functional sequence in a random model (or of the random transition, in a model with random steps). In a sense, it has a meaning similar to an alpha error in a classical hypothesis testing scenario, but the concept is different because it must rule out with certainty all the potential probabilistic resources of the system we are considering. IOWs, we must completely rule out (at least empirically: they remain “logically” possible) all false positives. As anybody probably knows, that means usually that we accept a high rate of false negatives.

    Dembski has suggested a UPB of 500 bits (more or less), to rule out chance even if we take into account all the probabilistic resources of the whole universe. I have proposed 150 bits to rule out any realistic biological model on our planet. I arrived to that number by a very gross computation from general maximum values for variables such as bacterial populations all over the planet, bacterial reproduction rate, age of the earth, and so on. Again, it is a very rough estimation, and it is only for general debate. Frankly, I believed that the bound of 500 bits was certainly vastly overestimated for a biological context. I am quite confident that 150 bits is still a very generous, high threshold. At present, the only empirical esteem of an edge for observed biological systems is the two AAs proposed by Behe in his TEOE. That would be less than 10 bits.

    Finally, Shannon’s entropy. I mentioned it for two reasons:

    1) The complexity in dFSCI is best expressed in similar units as Shannon’s entropy, that is as the negative ln of probability (I am not trying to be precise here, please: I am not a mathemathician). But the general concept is simple. If the probability of a single event (a specific sequence) is the ratio of 1 to the search space (I know, that implies a uniform distribution of probability, but that’s another problem, and if you want we can discuss it later), than the probability of a target space (let’s say the set of all the sequences which have the function we defined) will be the ratio of the target space to the search space. Let’s suppose that the ratio is 2^-100. Then the complexity, in bits (or better Fits) is 100.

    As you can see, the most difficult part in that is to know, even approximately, how big is the target space. As far as I know, Durston’s indirect method ia at present the best empirical answer to that. And Dusrtom applies directly the concept of Shannon’s entropy to protein families, as you can see in his paper. The reduction in uncertainly between functional sequences and a random sequence is a measure of the functional information in Fits.

    I think that’s enough, for now.

  47. 47
    gpuccio says:

    Warehuf:

    I strangely agree with many of Jurassicmac’s objections to your position 🙂 .

    The problem with it is that it is not scientific, but purely based on faith.

    ID does not refute darwinian evolution because of faith problems, but becasue it does not explain facts. The unexplained fact is the origin of functional information in biological beings. All of them, not just humans. Indeed, the least explained quantity of unexplained information is probably at OOL. But, as I say rather often (sigh), each new protein superfamily’s emergence is unexplained by the darwinian theory. And much more.

    This is the only scientific approach to the problem. The problem is not to make darwinists happy, or christians happy. The problem is to understand what is scientifically reasonable and what is not.

  48. 48
    MathGrrl says:

    gpuccio,

    I appreciate the time you’re spending to respond, but I’m afraid you still haven’t quantified CSI. Usually when mathematicians define a new term, they define it very rigorously. It would help immensely if you provided a step-by-step worked example of how to quantitatively measure CSI (or any variant thereof) for a real world biological system.

    Please, let’s consider measuring the CSI of either the immune system (using the papers referenced in the earlier thread) or of any frameshift mutations (referenced by Petrushka in that same thread). We should be able to agree on clearly defined functions for those and be able to start to test some of the claims made about the ability of evolutionary mechanisms to generate CSI.

    I’d also really appreciate it if you could answer one particular question from my previous post: If it were shown that evolutionary mechanisms could create Shannon Information, would you concede that those same mechanisms could create CSI?

    Thanks!

  49. 49
    MathGrrl says:

    gpuccio,

    But, as I say rather often (sigh), each new protein superfamily’s emergence is unexplained by the darwinian theory.

    Again, I appreciate all of your efforts in attempting to explain CSI, but I think you’re overstating what you’ve managed to demonstrate thus far.

    You and I agreed previously that it is essential to understand the evolutionary history of the system under discussion in order to compute the “functional information” created by those changes. We’re also still in the process of determining exactly how to measure “functional information” / CSI in this thread.

    Until your terms are rigorously defined and you’ve provided a step-by-step calculation of CSI for an unambiguously defined function of a real world biological system, you cannot make any credible, testable claims.

  50. 50
    bornagain77 says:

    Mathgrrl, since the immune system is clearly a designed ‘evolutionary algorithm’ that uses directed mutations within a well defined sequence space to arrive at a desired target, is it fair to exclude the active information, as defined by Dembski and Marks, that is clearly inherent in the immune system prior to the search?

    notes:

    LIFE’S CONSERVATION LAW – William Dembski – Robert Marks – Pg. 13
    Excerpt: Simulations such as Dawkins’s WEASEL, Adami’s AVIDA, Ray’s Tierra, and Schneider’s ev appear to support Darwinian evolution, but only for lack of clear accounting practices that track the information smuggled into them.,,, Information does not magically materialize. It can be created by intelligence or it can be shunted around by natural forces. But natural forces, and Darwinian processes in particular, do not create information. Active information enables us to see why this is the case.
    http://evoinfo.org/publication.....ation-law/

    It is interesting to note that many times evolutionists will try to use the highly choreographed mutation/selection process of the immune system itself, claiming that the brilliantly designed immune system is actually proof of evolution. Yet the immune system is almost exactly what we have with with the evolutionists claims for ‘evolutionary algorithms’ in that the immune system is carefully designed from the outset to converge on a solution. It would be surprising, and deadly, if the immune system did not do what it was suppose to do. This following paper gives a little glimpse behind the beauty of the design that is found within the immune system:

    Falk’s fallacy – Feb. 2010
    Excerpt: This (the immune system) is one of the most amazing processes ever described.,,, Whatever may be said about it, it is a highly regulated, specified, directed and choreographed process. It is obviously the product of overwhelmingly brilliant design,,,
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ks-falacy/

    Signature In The Cell – Review
    Excerpt: There is absolutely nothing surprising about the results of these (evolutionary) algorithms. The computer is programmed from the outset to converge on the solution. The programmer designed to do that. What would be surprising is if the program didn’t converge on the solution. That would reflect badly on the skill of the programmer. Everything interesting in the output of the program came as a result of the programmer’s skill-the information input. There are no mysterious outputs. – Software Engineer – quoted to Stephen Meyer
    http://www.scribd.com/full/293.....18zn6dtju0

  51. 51
    vividbleau says:

    RE 49 ” Until your terms are rigorously defined and you’ve provided a step-by-step calculation of CSI for an unambiguously defined function of a real world biological system, you cannot make any credible, testable claims.”

    Tell me mg the rigourous step by step evolutionary steps for the unguided, undirected evolution of chemicals to man? Would you be so kind to do that for us? Otherwise Darwinists cannot make any credible, testable claims.

    Thanks!

    Vivid

  52. 52
    bornagain77 says:

    gpuccio, I’m ‘borrowing’ your definition for functional information @46 since it is concise and up to date I’ve seen recently,, In note to your exchange with Mathgrrl,, you must have the patience of Job to put up with such xxxx.

  53. 53
    gpuccio says:

    MathGrrl:

    Maybe BA has a point, and my patience is not infinite.

    Let’s be simple. Durston measures the functional information in the P 53 DNA domain at 525 Fits. Therefore, according to my definition and threshold, and even according to Dembski’s threshold, it is a protein which can be classified as exhibiting dFSCI. That means that a purely random search, starting form any non related starting state, be it from scratch of form an existing unrelated sequence, has to generate 525 bits of functional information to produce that protein domain.

    Now, if you or anyone else has a gradual model for the origin of that protein domain, please give it. If you believe that there are fubnctional selectable intermediates, please tell us what they can be, and why they were selected. We then will restrict the analysis to the random transitions in your model.

    At present, I am aware of no such model for any of the fundamental protein domain families. All the evidence points to an independent emergence of each of them, followed by an expansion of each of them in each separate funtional state, very slow and sometimes not yet completed, without ever going out of that functional space (see for that the following recent paper: “Sequence space and the ongoing expansion of the protein universe” at this link):

    http://www.nature.com/nature/j.....09105.html

    All this points to a designed origin of protein domains, followed by a random divergent evolution in the limits of the existing function, probably as a result of neutral mutations and negative selection.

    Nothing, instead, points to a gradual, functional transition from one protein domain family to another, unrelated one.

    But you can always believe and hope. As I have said many times, I always respect the faith in others.

  54. 54
    gpuccio says:

    BA;

    Thank you for the psychological support. I need it…

  55. 55
    Upright BiPed says:

    Vivid,

    You are completely correct.

    The fact that mathgrrl is not here for actual understanding (read: disingenuous) has been previously established, despite her protest otherwise.

    It is a compliment to ID that the opposition has been forced to present tactics in place of evidence.

  56. 56
    tgpeeler says:

    jmac, not coming out to play. It has been explained to you over and over again by better minds than mine. If you really can’t understand “information” within the context of this discussion then you are way past me being able to contribute to your understanding of anything. Have a great day.

    p.s. No information was destroyed or injured in the making of this post…

  57. 57
    StephenB says:

    Truly it is a marvel to watch Darwinists claim, on one post, that naturalistic forces can produce information just as efficiently as an intelligent agent and, on another post, claim not to know what it is that is being produced. You’ve got to love it.

    Allen MacNeill, though his efforts are futile, at least tries to make his case straight up without playing the ignorance card.

  58. 58
    Upright BiPed says:

    #57

    True, but I know as a matter of documented fact that when Allan is confronted with, er, a discontinuity in his reasoning he will simply disappear from the conversation. As they say, there is more than one way to skin a cat.

  59. 59
    Petrushka says:

    The fact that mathgrrl is not here for actual understanding (read: disingenuous) has been previously established, despite her protest otherwise.

    An overly sensitive person might think that comment is uncivil.

  60. 60
    markf says:

    #58

    UB – if you are an ID opponent you somtimes find that you are removed from the conversation without any reason and without other participants necessarily knowing. I am not claiming it has happened to Allan or that it is intentional but it has happened to me a couple of times.

  61. 61
    MathGrrl says:

    gpuccio,

    Maybe BA has a point, and my patience is not infinite.

    You seem to be under the impression that you are the only one demonstrating patience in this discussion. I can assure you that is not the case. 😉

    I have patiently been requesting a step-by-step example of how to calculate CSI (or some variant thereof) for a biological system taking into consideration known evolutionary mechanisms. If you are refusing to provide such, just let me know and I’ll stop asking. However, if you do refuse, intellectual honesty requires that you stop making claims that involve CSI until you can demonstrate how to calculate it.

    My goal in this conversation is to understand your claims well enough to test them. As it stands now, you have not defined your terms clearly enough for anyone else to even calculate a value for “functional information”. An example would eliminate this problem immediately.

    Could you please begin by answering my previous question: If it were shown that evolutionary mechanisms could create Shannon Information, would you concede that those same mechanisms could create CSI?

    I’ll be happy to discuss Durston’s paper once we have “functional information” rigorously defined.

  62. 62
    MathGrrl says:

    tgpeeler,

    mac, not coming out to play. It has been explained to you over and over again by better minds than mine. If you really can’t understand “information” within the context of this discussion then you are way past me being able to contribute to your understanding of anything.

    Mathematicians and scientists have no problem with rigorously defining the terms that they use, particularly when those terms, like “information”, have a far more precise meaning than they do in ordinary conversation.

    If you are unwilling to define your terms, any claims you make about them are quite literally meaningless. Why the resistance to making your assertions testable?

  63. 63
    Upright BiPed says:

    Mark, Allan was still on the forum elsewhere.

  64. 64
    bornagain77 says:

    Mathgrrl you state:

    “Why the resistance to making your assertions testable?”

    Are we in Seinfeld’s Bizarro World Mathgrrl?

    Seinfeld – Elaine discovers Bizarro World
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcjSDZNbOs0

    AMBER: THE LOOKING GLASS INTO THE PAST:
    Excerpt: These (fossilized bacteria) cells are actually very similar to present day cyanobacteria. This is not only true for an isolated case but many living genera of cyanobacteria can be linked to fossil cyanobacteria. The detail noted in the fossils of this group gives indication of extreme conservation of morphology, more extreme than in other organisms.
    http://bcb705.blogspot.com/200.....st_23.html

    Bacteria: Fossil Record – Ancient Compared to Modern – Picture
    http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/b.....riafr.html

    Though it is impossible to reconstruct the DNA of these earliest bacteria fossils, scientists find in the fossil record, and compare them to their descendants of today, there are many ancient bacteria spores recovered and ‘revived’ from salt crystals and amber crystals which have been compared to their living descendants of today. Some bacterium spores, in salt crystals, dating back as far as 250 million years have been revived, had their DNA sequenced, and compared to their offspring of today (Vreeland RH, 2000 Nature). To the disbelieving shock of many scientists, both ancient and modern bacteria were found to have the almost same exact DNA sequence.

    The Paradox of the “Ancient” Bacterium Which Contains “Modern” Protein-Coding Genes:
    “Almost without exception, bacteria isolated from ancient material have proven to closely resemble modern bacteria at both morphological and molecular levels.” Heather Maughan*, C. William Birky Jr., Wayne L. Nicholson, William D. Rosenzweig§ and Russell H. Vreeland ;
    http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/...../19/9/1637

  65. 65
    bornagain77 says:

    further notes Mathgrrl:

    Evolutionists were so disbelieving at this stunning lack of change that they insisted the stunning similarity was due to modern contamination in Vreeland’s experiment. Yet the following study laid that objection to rest by verifying that Dr. Vreeland’s methodology for extracting ancient DNA was solid and was not introducing contamination because the DNA sequences this time around were completely unique:

    World’s Oldest Known DNA Discovered (419 million years old) – Dec. 2009
    Excerpt: But the DNA was so similar to that of modern microbes that many scientists believed the samples had been contaminated. Not so this time around. A team of researchers led by Jong Soo Park of Dalhousie University in Halifax, Canada, found six segments of identical DNA that have never been seen before by science. “We went back and collected DNA sequences from all known halophilic bacteria and compared them to what we had,” Russell Vreeland of West Chester University in Pennsylvania said. “These six pieces were unique”,,,
    http://news.discovery.com/eart.....vered.html

    These following studies, by Dr. Cano on ancient bacteria, preceded Dr. Vreeland’s work:

    “Raul J. Cano and Monica K. Borucki discovered the bacteria preserved within the abdomens of insects encased in pieces of amber. In the last 4 years, they have revived more than 1,000 types of bacteria and microorganisms — some dating back as far as 135 million years ago, during the age of the dinosaurs.,,, In October 2000, another research group used many of the techniques developed by Cano’s lab to revive 250-million-year-old bacteria from spores trapped in salt crystals. With this additional evidence, it now seems that the “impossible” is true.”
    http://www.physicsforums.com/s.....p?t=281961

    Revival and identification of bacterial spores in 25- to 40-million-year-old Dominican amber
    Dr. Cano and his former graduate student Dr. Monica K. Borucki said that they had found slight but significant differences between the DNA of the ancient, 25-40 million year old amber-sealed Bacillus sphaericus and that of its modern counterpart,(thus ruling out that it is a modern contaminant, yet at the same time confounding materialists, since the change is not nearly as great as evolution’s ‘genetic drift’ theory requires.)
    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/...../5213/1060

    Dr. Cano’s work on ancient bacteria came in for intense scrutiny since it did not conform to Darwinian predictions, and since people found it hard to believe you could revive something that was millions of years old. Yet Dr. Cano has been vindicated:

    “After the onslaught of publicity and worldwide attention (and scrutiny) after the publication of our discovery in Science, there have been, as expected, a considerable number of challenges to our claims, but in this case, the scientific method has smiled on us. There have been at least three independent verifications of the isolation of a living microorganism from amber.”
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-357693

    In reply to a personal e-mail from myself, Dr. Cano commented on the ‘Fitness Test’ I had asked him about:
    Dr. Cano stated: “We performed such a test, a long time ago, using a panel of substrates (the old gram positive biolog panel) on B. sphaericus. From the results we surmised that the putative “ancient” B. sphaericus isolate was capable of utilizing a broader scope of substrates. Additionally, we looked at the fatty acid profile and here, again, the profiles were similar but more diverse in the amber isolate.”:
    Fitness test which compared ancient bacteria to its modern day descendants, RJ Cano and MK Borucki

    Thus, the most solid evidence available for the most ancient DNA scientists are able to find does not support evolution happening on the molecular level of bacteria. In fact, according to the fitness test of Dr. Cano, the change witnessed in bacteria conforms to the exact opposite, Genetic Entropy; a loss of functional information/complexity, since fewer substrates and fatty acids are utilized by the modern strains. Considering the intricate level of protein machinery it takes to utilize individual molecules within a substrate, we are talking an impressive loss of protein complexity, and thus loss of functional information, from the ancient amber sealed bacteria. Here is a revisit to the video of the ‘Fitness Test’ that evolutionary processes have NEVER passed as for a demonstration of the generation of functional complexity/information above what was already present in a parent species bacteria:

    Is Antibiotic Resistance evidence for evolution? – ‘Fitness Test’ – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3995248

    According to prevailing evolutionary dogma, there ‘HAS’ to be ‘major genetic drift’ to the DNA of bacteria within 250 million years, even though the morphology (shape) of the bacteria can be expected to remain exactly the same. In spite of their preconceived materialistic bias, scientists find there is no significant genetic drift from the ancient DNA. In fact recent research, with bacteria which are alive right now, has also severely weakened the ‘genetic drift’ argument of evolutionists:

    The consequences of genetic drift for bacterial genome complexity – Howard Ochman – 2009
    Excerpt: The increased availability of sequenced bacterial genomes allows application of an alternative estimator of drift, the genome-wide ratio of replacement to silent substitutions in protein-coding sequences. This ratio, which reflects the action of purifying selection across the entire genome, shows a strong inverse relationship with genome size, indicating that drift promotes genome reduction in bacteria.
    http://genome.cshlp.org/conten.....091785.109

    But Mathgrrl this is really not surprising since if genomes did ‘drift about’ their would be nothing for the genomes to drift to:

    Evolution Tested and Falsified – Dr. Don Patton – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4036803

    Evolution Vs. Functional Proteins – Where Did The Information Come From? – Doug Axe – Stephen Meyer – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4018222

    Estimating the prevalence of protein sequences adopting functional enzyme folds: Doug Axe:
    Excerpt: this implies the overall prevalence of sequences performing a specific function by any domain-sized fold may be as low as 1 in 10^77, adding to the body of evidence that functional folds require highly extraordinary sequences. (of note: the universe only has 10^80 sub-atomic particles)
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15321723

  66. 66
    markf says:

    #62 UB

    As I said it may not apply to Allan, but all ID supporters should be aware that if their opponents drop out of the conversation it may be because they have been excluded without warning. It is quite frustrating (of course they may just have got bored).

  67. 67
    Upright BiPed says:

    mathgrrl,

    Perhaps if you could just do a little more posturing you might shake GP from his non-responsive treatment of you.

    Or, alternatively, you could tell him exactly what you find missing from Durston’s measurement, and he could respond to an actual argument.

  68. 68
    Upright BiPed says:

    mark,

    Your need to hustle the party whine is duly noted.

  69. 69
    jurassicmac says:

    StephenB @ 57

    Truly it is a marvel to watch Darwinists claim, on one post, that naturalistic forces can produce information just as efficiently as an intelligent agent…

    Who was this silly darwinist that said naturalistic forces can produce information just as efficiently as an intelligent agent? That is quite a stupid thing to say. Which post was that? I’d like to give them a piece of my mind for saying something so ignorant.

    …and, on another post, claim not to know what it is that is being produced. You’ve got to love it.

    Which posts were those again? I’m sure you’re not putting straw-man words in to someone else’s mouth, are you?

  70. 70
    MathGrrl says:

    Upright BiPed,

    Perhaps if you could just do a little more posturing

    Your incivility is noted. If you want ID to be taken seriously, you should spend more time answering legitimate questions than casting aspersions on others’ characters. Doing so gives the impression that you can’t answer those questions.

    you could tell him exactly what you find missing from Durston’s measurement

    Gpuccio has never stated which, if any, of Durston’s calculations are equivalent to his (gpuccio’s) concept of “functional information”.

  71. 71
    Upright BiPed says:

    math,

    As expected.

    Where exactly in your latest post did you address whatever you find lacking in Durston’s measurement?

  72. 72
    bornagain77 says:

    Mathgrrl, actually ID is taken seriously by a majority of Americans:

    Zogby Poll: Most Americans Believe in Intelligent Design
    http://www.dakotavoice.com/200.....nt-design/

    It seems that it takes a fair amount of brainwashing (oops I meant ‘higher’ education) to completely crush the common sense that most Americans have to see overwhelming Intelligent Design that is clearly present in such things as this:

    Cells Are Like Robust Computational Systems, – June 2009
    Excerpt: Gene regulatory networks in cell nuclei are similar to cloud computing networks, such as Google or Yahoo!, researchers report today in the online journal Molecular Systems Biology. The similarity is that each system keeps working despite the failure of individual components, whether they are master genes or computer processors. ,,,,”We now have reason to think of cells as robust computational devices, employing redundancy in the same way that enables large computing systems, such as Amazon, to keep operating despite the fact that servers routinely fail.”
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....103205.htm

    I don’t know Mathgrrl, it is hard for me to take you Darwinists seriously, when you guys pretend evolution has all this great support behind it when in fact it doesn’t. Perhaps you are the one who can show me functional complexity being generated??? Perhaps you could show me a flagellum being put together by evolutionary processes?

    Michael Behe on Falsifying Intelligent Design – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8jXXJN4o_A

    Bacterial Flagellum – A Sheer Wonder Of Intelligent Design – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3994630

    Or if that’s to hard perhaps you could show me where Axe went wrong:

    Estimating the prevalence of protein sequences adopting functional enzyme folds: Doug Axe:
    Excerpt: this implies the overall prevalence of sequences performing a specific function by any domain-sized fold may be as low as 1 in 10^77, adding to the body of evidence that functional folds require highly extraordinary sequences. (of note: the universe only has 10^80 sub-atomic particles)
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15321723

    Maybe that is too much to ask you Darwinists Mathgrrl, perhaps you could show me a simple two step increase in vertical evolution:

    This following paper, and audio interview, shows that there is a severe ‘fitness cost’ for cells to carry ‘transitional’ proteins that have not achieved full functionality yet:

    Reductive Evolution Can Prevent Populations from Taking Simple Adaptive Paths to High Fitness – May 2010
    Excerpt: Despite the theoretical existence of this short adaptive path to high fitness, multiple independent lines grown in tryptophan-limiting liquid culture failed to take it. Instead, cells consistently acquired mutations that reduced expression of the double-mutant trpA gene. Our results show that competition between reductive and constructive paths may significantly decrease the likelihood that a particular constructive path will be taken.
    http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/.....O-C.2010.2

    Testing Evolution in the Lab With Biologic Institute’s Ann Gauger – audio
    http://www.idthefuture.com/201.....lab_w.html

    Or perhaps that is too hard for you, so maybe you can show me the work that falsifies Behe:

    “The likelihood of developing two binding sites in a protein complex would be the square of the probability of developing one: a double CCC (chloroquine complexity cluster), 10^20 times 10^20, which is 10^40. There have likely been fewer than 10^40 cells in the entire world in the past 4 billion years, so the odds are against a single event of this variety (just 2 binding sites being generated by accident) in the history of life. It is biologically unreasonable.” Michael J. Behe PhD. (from page 146 of his book “Edge of Evolution”)

    Nature Paper,, Finds Darwinian Processes Lacking – Michael Behe – Oct. 2009
    Excerpt: Now, thanks to the work of Bridgham et al (2009), even such apparently minor switches in structure and function (of a protein to its supposed ancestral form) are shown to be quite problematic. It seems Darwinian processes can’t manage to do even as much as I had thought. (which was 1 in 10^40 for just 2 binding sites)
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....hes_t.html

    I don’t know Mathgrrl, you act as if you got all this evidence backing you up and I can’t find anything whatsoever to back you up in what you Darwinists say is true!!! Perhaps I missed something,,, could you please show me that knock down piece of evidence that will finally prove evolution even plausible to me??? I promise if you do that I will join you in your crusade to convert America to your religion of blind pitiful indifference a.k.a. Darwinism!!!

  73. 73
    Cabal says:

    I only wish

    “you Darwinists”

    would not be used quite as often…

  74. 74
    bornagain77 says:

    Sorry Cabal your right, the proper term I should have used is,,,

    ‘you neo-Darwinists’

    since I was in fact referring to the dogmatic atheistic position that is currently taught as established fact in all our major universities despite have zero empirical support. My apologies to all the other flavors of evolution out there.

  75. 75
    LarTanner says:

    Interesting discussion. I would hope there’s not “fear” of ID but rather willingness to consider how the empirical data converges more to the ID side or the naturalistic side.

    What do folks think are the most important biological papers that give empirical support to Intelligent Design?

  76. 76
    Upright BiPed says:

    mathgrrl,

    You have, so far, failed to post what exactly you find lacking in Durston’s measurements.

    If you do so, then GP will have an opportunity to respond to an actual argument.

    Since intellectual honesty is one of your concerns, stating Durston’s errors outright, then allowing those to be scrutinized, would surely be more productive than simply walking away with a wholly manufactured belief, don’t you agree?

  77. 77
    Innerbling says:

    Mathgrrl in 48:

    “I’d also really appreciate it if you could answer one particular question from my previous post: If it were shown that evolutionary mechanisms could create Shannon Information, would you concede that those same mechanisms could create CSI?”

    If you were really interested in the truth you wouldn’t ask this kinda silly questions. It’s sad and transparent really. You would instead ask “Why do we need to develop new models like CSI etc. for information when we already have well defined Shannon information?” And I could or someone else could explain why.

  78. 78
    tgpeeler says:

    Mathgrrl @ 62, sorry, not coming out to play with you either. It’s a lot more fun for me to watch Upright, BA77, GP, etal, do the damage to your lack of argument than to do it myself. I’m trying to learn patience by watching the masters. I still have a ways to go. “What is information?” Indeed. That is rich. Have a nice day.

  79. 79
    warehuff says:

    Jurrasicmac @ 36 I haven’t been a theist since grammar school, but many of my friends and relatives are and the ones who aren’t fundamentalists tend towards theistic evolution. Their general idea of TE is that Darwinian evolution works all the time without requiring supernatural attention, but God occasionally “tweaks” the process to get an organism exactly the way He wants it.

    It’s always seemed like a pretty reasonable belief to me. There are problems with it, as you point out, but those are problems with religion in general.

    Theistic Evolution is not only compatible with ID, it solves a problem I’ve never seen addressed by the ID community – just when is the Intelligently Designed DNA added?

    Genesis implies that all of the DNA in all of the species was assembled over a six day period several thousand years ago, but that theory hasn’t stood the test of time. Instead, life seems to be billions of years old and species seem to only last for a few million years on average. New species also seem to be derived from older species.

    Darwinian evolution says that variation and natural selection (plus sexual selection, genetic drift and a host of other factors) is responsible for the DNA changes that make new species. Theistic Evolution says that in addition to that, God is responsible for some of the changes, especially the ones that led to human beings. When He wants to make a new organism or fine tune an existing one, He just slips the new DNA into a newly fertilized egg (or at some other stage such as the sperm or unfertilized egg) and the job is done and ID’s problem is solved.

    “No it does not. If you have to invoke a miracle in your explanation, It is not science at all.”

    Well, no, it’s THEISTIC Evolution.

  80. 80
    warehuff says:

    bornagain77 @ 3: “Case in point, is it easier for man to design a new operating system for a computer by ‘bottom up’ incrementally changing a existing program one bit at a time, maintaining functionality of the computer system for each step the entire time, or is it easier for man to design a new operating system from the top down, in the proper hierarchal structure, so as to accomplish the desired function?”

    BA, computer object code is Intelligently Designed. The Intelligent Designers optimize the code for compactness and speedy execution. This makes the code extremely brittle and it’s almost impossible to change even a single bit without having an effect on the program. A LOT of those effects are major – for example, changing a single bit can change a Jump On Zero instruction to a Jump On NonZero which will crash the average program.

    Because of this Intelligently Designed brittleness, it is probably not possible to make major changes to most computer programs by changing one bit at a time while keeping each iteration of the program viable.

    DNA code, on the other hand, is evolved. There is a ton of redundancy in the basic code and the organisms “designed” by evolution are full of feedback loops that tend to keep the organism in optimal condition for survival and reproduction.

    Because of this, if you start changing single DNA base-pairs, you will find that about half of the changes have no discernable effect on the organism at all. A very significant fraction of the changes that do affect the organism, make “useful” changes. The changes that damage the organism are discarded by evolution.

    Apples Pears
    Computer Code DNA Code

  81. 81
    warehuff says:

    That should be:

    Apples do not equal Pears
    Computer Code does not equal DNA Code.

    Apparently when the “less than” and “greater than” symbols are typed next to each other, the Blog code deletes them.

  82. 82
    andrewjg says:

    @warehuff

    Use &gt; for > and &lt; for <

  83. 83
    andrewjg says:

    @warehuff 79

    “BA, computer object code is Intelligently Designed. The Intelligent Designers optimize the code for compactness and speedy execution. This makes the code extremely brittle and it’s almost impossible to change even a single bit without having an effect on the program.”

    That is at best half the story. Everything BA said is true. Good programs are modular, layered, a great deal of care is taken to separate responsibilities and ensure you “don’t repeat yourself”. Good programs are designed to be maintained and incrementally improved.

    The fact that we don’t have machines that can determine what the code is intended to do as opposed to what it says is more about our ability than design rules in particular. But we certainly do have many way in which we prevent the brittleness you talk about being a problem. There is redundancy and error detection and correction mechanisms everywhere.

    We also have a ton of redundancy in code. Just look at something like the graphics display system in Windows for example. There are multiple rendering paths. Redundancy is a hallmark of good design.

    You are confusing our limitations as designers with design in general.

    But lets look at DNA and all the systems involved in the maintenance and expression of it. There should be millions of inferior systems i.e. systems out there and yet there are not. Bacteria that is 250 millions years old is the same as it is today.

    The fact that the base layers of life all have so much in common are so stable is a testament to good design. The fact that the higher layers of life are so mutable and adaptable is again evidence of design of the highest order. Systems that just happened without forethought could hardly be so robust.

  84. 84
    gpuccio says:

    MathGrrl:

    For once, let’s change: I am not patient anymore.

    you say:

    I have patiently been requesting a step-by-step example of how to calculate CSI (or some variant thereof) for a biological system taking into consideration known evolutionary mechanisms.

    Well, I have defined and explained how to compute dFSCI. Now, you give me a “biological system with known and explicit evolutionary mechanisms”, and I will apply my definitions and procedures to it.

    If those systems sgould not exist, it’s not certainly my fault. Maybe the great theory of darwinian evolution has not been able to produce a real model in the manny years it has existed. Not my problem at all. My definition and procedures remain perfectly valid, and can be applied to what exists, not certainly to what does not exist.

    That’s all, for me. And anybody is free to judge my or your intellectual honesty.

  85. 85
    gpuccio says:

    MathGrrl:

    Gpuccio has never stated which, if any, of Durston’s calculations are equivalent to his (gpuccio’s) concept of “functional information”.

    Are you kidding? All of them!

  86. 86
    gpuccio says:

    MathGrrl:

    From my post #53 to you:

    “Let’s be simple. Durston measures the functional information in the P 53 DNA domain at 525 Fits. Therefore, according to my definition and threshold, and even according to Dembski’s threshold, it is a protein which can be classified as exhibiting dFSCI. That means that a purely random search, starting form any non related starting state, be it from scratch of form an existing unrelated sequence, has to generate 525 bits of functional information to produce that protein domain.”

    What was it that I had never stated?

    As I asked Indium, why do darwinists start to imagine things, when they have no more arguments?

  87. 87
    Petrushka says:

    Let’s be simple. Durston measures the functional information in the P 53 DNA domain at 525 Fits. Therefore, according to my definition and threshold, and even according to Dembski’s threshold, it is a protein which can be classified as exhibiting dFSCI.

    Several papers have been linked that showed protein evolution in the laboratory that began with random sequences, and proceeded with random mutations.

    One of the papers I linked asserted that it was rather easy to reach the mid-point in functionality, starting from random sequences.

  88. 88
    andrewjg says:

    Petrushka@87

    Which paper? Is your link in this thread?

  89. 89
    Petrushka says:

    http://www.plosone.org/article.....ne.0000096

    Based on the landscapes of these two different surfaces, it appears possible for adaptive walks with only random substitutions to climb with relative ease up to the middle region of the fitness landscape from any primordial or random sequence, whereas an enormous range of sequence diversity is required to climb further up the rugged surface above the middle region.

    Other articles on protein evolution:

    http://www.nature.com/nrm/jour.....m2805.html

    Directed evolution circumvents our profound ignorance of how a protein’s sequence encodes its function by using iterative rounds of random mutation and artificial selection to discover new and useful proteins. Proteins can be tuned to adapt to new functions or environments by simple adaptive walks involving small numbers of mutations. Directed evolution studies have shown how rapidly some proteins can evolve under strong selection pressures and, because the entire ‘fossil record’ of evolutionary intermediates is available for detailed study, they have provided new insight into the relationship between sequence and function. Directed evolution has also shown how mutations that are functionally neutral can set the stage for further adaptation.

    http://scholar.google.com/scho.....CCIQzwIwAA

    Of course there appear to be some who believe that chemistry behaves differently outside the laboratory, or the fact that experiments are controlled implies that they are not relevant to real life.

    That would make evolution somewhat different than other branches of science, where the ability to control variables makes research possible.

  90. 90
    zeroseven says:

    “That’s all, for me. And anybody is free to judge my or your intellectual honesty.”

    My vote is with mathGrrl. For some reason her questions unleashed a torrent of emotive uncivil responses. And now she has probably gone, realising that the prospect of a civil discussion has gone.

    What makes people angry and uncivil? When their foundational beliefs are threatened.

  91. 91
    tgpeeler says:

    z7 – actually, just speaking for myself, I am stimulated when my foundational beliefs are actually challenged by means of rational argument. That provides me the opportunity to consider new arguments and data and to make adjustments in my thinking, if warranted. What makes me angry (and uncivil) is when I am subjected to relentless stupidity and willful ignorance. But that’s just me. Have a nice day.

  92. 92
    warehuff says:

    andrewjg, thanks for the &LT &GT tips.

    Unlike Evolutionary Designed DNA, Intelligently Designed computer code is intrinsicly brittle. By that I mean that almost any change to a computer binary code will make a significant change to the function of that code. I used the example of a single bit changing a Jump on Zero to a Jump on Non Zero code earlier.

    Good programming practices can limit the damage somewhat, but changing jump conditions is definitely going to affect the execution of the program.

    A lot of changes to DNA, on the other hand, will result in no change in the protein it specifies at all, since many amino acids are specified by two different DNA sequences.

    Even if a DNA change does result in a different amino acid, if that amino acid is buried inside a protein and it doesn’t affect the active areas on the surface of the protein, there will be no difference in the function of that protein.

    I can’t find the figures right now, but IIRC, on the average about one half of all DNA mutations produce no detectable effect on the organism. That is definitely not true for Intelligently Designed computer code.

  93. 93
    gpuccio says:

    zeroseven:

    My vote is with mathGrrl.

    Well, I had not exactly asked for popular vote, but thak you just the same for your contribution :). In a sense, I feel on TV.

    I don’t like incivility, but believe be, there are many different ways to be incivil, and some of them are worse, and less sincere, than others.

  94. 94
    jurassicmac says:

    bornagain 77:

    Mathgrrl, actually ID is taken seriously by a majority of Americans:>Zogby Poll: Most Americans Believe in Intelligent Design
    http://www.dakotavoice.com/200…..nt-design/</blockquote

    Yes, and most americans believe in alien abductions: http://www.cnn.com/US/9706/15/ufo.poll/

    When I have a problem with my car, I don't care what 'most americans' think the solution is, I care what most mechanics, think the solution is.

    When I’m sick, I don’t care what most americans think about it, I care what most doctors think about it.

    In that same way, in evaluating scientific subjects, or anything else for that matter, what ‘regular people’ think doesn’t (and shouldn’t) carry nearly as much weight as what the experts in the field think. It of course doesn’t mean the experts are always right, but I’d bet on what a respected geologist says about earth’s history over that of a shoe-shiner, no matter how clever that shoe-shiner was, or how good he was a shining shoes.
    Most people think that humans only use about ~10% of their brains, but I’d guess that essentially no trained neurobiologists believe this.

    The “most people believe in an ID” is an argument that I hear over and over, and for the life of me I can’t understand why you think it is a compelling argument at all.

  95. 95
    jurassicmac says:

    addendum:

    Also, when someone says “Most Americans don’t accept evolution,” your phrasing is slightly inaccurate; what you are actually saying is “Most Americans don’t accept evolution,except the experts in the fields of biology, genetics, paleontology, geology, etc.

    That would be like saying: “Most americans think vaccines cause autism; except for doctors, medical researchers, or experts in autism or vaccination.”

  96. 96
    gpuccio says:

    jurassicmac:

    for once, I am with you: I like to be minority. Like in:

    most scientists believe blindly and obtusely in an irrational doctrine called darwinian evolution, except for a few illumined anticonformists, who embrace a much smarter view called ID… 🙂

  97. 97
    andrewjg says:

    warehuff@92

    Actually computer code could easily be more robust than that. There is a portion of code that will not be but lets say I have a very small kernel. It basically loads some instructions into the executable address space. Now those instructions could be stored with as much redundancy as you may care for. A CD/DVD has a lot of redundancy in it. That is why you can scratch it badly before it becomes useless. A CD’s can contain programs e.g. when you install your OS. Its the beauty of serialisation.

    When you talk about mutations you are typically talking about protein coding areas. Now if the mutation occurs in an area of the protein which is resistant to mutations i.e. they change the protein but don’t prevent it from being functional then it should continue to work. But that would not be true if the laws(rules) for how proteins fold where to change. Follow me for a bit. So for example if I have a vector file containing a diagram of say a house it could withstand quite a bit f mutation(random change) and still define a functional house. So digital code can very resistant to random change. But computers basically create virtual machines – they have their own laws (instruction sets). If you fiddle with the instraction set it won’t work at all.

    So in summary proteins are like digital specifications and protein folding laws are like a computers instruction set.

    This probably explains why protein binding sites are difficult for mutation. They can’t tolerate small changes.

  98. 98
    Petrushka says:

    This probably explains why protein binding sites are difficult for mutation. They can’t tolerate small changes.

    I’d be interested to know if New Delhi metallo-beta-lactamase 1 is an instance of new complex specified information or not.

    Perhaps a related question would be in order: What exactly is the function of a plasmid?

  99. 99
    Clive Hayden says:

    Yes, and most americans believe in alien abductions: http://www.cnn.com/US/9706/15/ufo.poll/

    That link doesn’t work for me, and you’re implying that people shouldn’t believe in alien abduction, which is just a form of begging the question, because you’re acting as if it’s already been answered in the negative, and that they are wrong in supposing otherwise, when it hasn’t been answered in the negative.

    Mathgrrl, actually ID is taken seriously by a majority of Americans:>Zogby Poll: Most Americans Believe in Intelligent Design…..When I have a problem with my car, I don’t care what ‘most americans’ think the solution is, I care what most mechanics, think the solution is.

    This is begging the question yet again, because you’re presupposing that ID is wrong, and then proceeding as if it is not an open question. This is really just another way of shutting off inquiry into interesting things like ID for an adherence to some philosophical presupposition that has nothing to do with the actual evidence. If you’ve already answered the question about ID or alien abduction or whatever open question there may be, then of course you’re going to find them wrong, because you started your weighing of everything with the answer already in mind. Just as if you don’t trust a man before you meet him, nothing he says will be believed. This is begging the question. And you’ve fooled yourself into thinking that “experts” don’t carry with them loads of preconceptions and presuppositions, and you take whatever they have to say with a spoon and a smile. At least the public at large is smart enough to have a healthy dose of skepticism, and the only folks that buy expert advice entirely and in almost every case are the semi-educated, educated just enough to be confused, but not enough to rise from the mire. They actually will be most susceptible to the propaganda that any “expert” claims, whereas the work-a-day American will have a healthy skepticism.

  100. 100
    Clive Hayden says:

    gpuccio,

    As I asked Indium, why do darwinists start to imagine things, when they have no more arguments?

    That very simple question is what initiated my first steps into suspicion of Darwinian evolution. Countless times from “experts”, some I had taken classes from in undergrad, would support their Darwinian explanations with pure story-telling. It’s like Dan Brown’s book The Davinci Code, which some people called “faction”, because it mixed “fact” and “fiction” interwoven together so tightly that it is difficult to ascertain where the one ends and the other begins. But this is the modern method of explanation, unfortunately, and evolution in particular.

  101. 101
    gpuccio says:

    Clive:

    Yes, it’s becoming rather boring.

    The sequence is, more or less (at least with me):

    Q: You have not given a definition of dFSCI

    A: Yes, I have. Here it is, again.

    Q: But you have not shown how it can be measured.

    A: Yes, I have. But here it is again, anyway. And please, read the Durston paper.

    Q: But you have not shown a real case where it has been applied.

    A: Yes, I have. Here and here and here. And Durston has measured it in 35 different protein families, and published the results.

    Q: You have never said what Durston measures.

    A: Yes, I have, here and here and here. He measure dFSCI, exactly what you requested.

    Q: I don’t accept Durston’s metrics, and never will. And anyway, it has been refuted (like Behe’s IC). And anyway, you have never defined dFSCI.

    And so on. With third party disturbers always ready to cite (without ever discussing it in detail) one of the few speculative papers which are published with the main purpose of falsifying ID (the science which should not be a science), as though they were the Bible and we all had to accept what they say just because they exist.

    Or, if the case requires it, to ask brilliant side questions about chihuahuas.

    (Just a suggestion to my kind interlocutors: I am a cat guy, you just ask about cats and you will conquer my heart).

    If it were not for the few, but remarkable, “enemies” who are serious and honest, even when they fully disagree, no interesting discussion would ever arise…

  102. 102
    andrewjg says:

    Clive Hayden@99

    I am probably one of those semi educated but I think you are right. Its sort of the emperor’s clothes problem. “You’re not one of those plebeians who believe in ID are you, why don’t you join the ranks of the informed, the people in the know, the people who have evolved beyond irrational beliefs”.

    Anyway one of my favourite quotes is by Malcolm Muggeridge, “Education, the great mumbo jumbo and fraud of the age purports to equip us to live and is prescribed as a universal remedy for everything from juvenile delinquency to premature senility.”

    It is interesting following the Evolution / ID debate outside of this forum. People treat evolution like it is a single thing. They believe that for example bacteria developing resistance to antibiotics is proof of evolution from a single cell to what we have today. They think the fact that species have the ability to adapt to an environment is proof the ID is false – it does not occur to them that the ability to adapt may be an excellent design feature.

  103. 103
    Petrushka says:

    People treat evolution like it is a single thing. They believe that for example bacteria developing resistance to antibiotics is proof of evolution from a single cell to what we have today.

    After 150 years it is impossible to summarize the work of tens of thousands of researchers into a single, simple, argument. It is impossible, even for a biologist to know the details of all the evidence.

    And it is impossible to prove that ID is false. It is only possible to continue finding evidence that, as Wallace suggested, varieties tend to depart indefinitely from the
    original type.

    Events like the appearance of a new plasmid gene in India, one that confers immunity to all antibiotics, and which can infect a wide range of bacteria types, is extremely interesting. No telling yet whether it will “prove” anything, but it demonstrates that a functional gene can spread across a wide variety of bacteria, and does not have to originate in the individual bacterium’s genome.

    Such a mechanism “might” explain how functional genes could accumulate at a rate faster than possible for a single organism.

  104. 104
    gpuccio says:

    andrewjg:

    You are perfectly right, and you stress a very important point: adaptive mechanisms are mistaken for examples of unguided evolution, while they are evidently necessity algorithms embedded in genetic information, supreme evidence of intelligent design.

    Plasmids and HGT in bacteria, as well as the two mechanisms in the immune system which create the basic antibody repertoire and determine the increase in affinity after the primary immunological response are very good examples of that.

    It is particularly interesting that adaptive mechanisms do use controlled random search in their context, but only in the range of what random search can really do. Antibody maturation is really a wonderful model for that.

  105. 105
    zeroseven says:

    gpuccio;

    “Or, if the case requires it, to ask brilliant side questions about chihuahuas.”

    I think I have already been suitably disciplined about that haven’t I?

    But actually, it was a serious question. Does artificial selection produce CSI? Actually, I think you say that it does right? Because it is guided with a specific goal in mind.

    By the way I love cats too. I have a 16 year old blue Burmese who has been a faithful companion since a kitten. Way more interesting than a dog.

  106. 106
    Petrushka says:

    It is particularly interesting that adaptive mechanisms do use controlled random search in their context, but only in the range of what random search can really do.

    Mutation and selection has been found to work very rapidly starting from a random sequence, up to the mid-level of functionality. I linked a number of papers confirming this.

    In other words, the origin of proteins is relatively easy. What gets slow is perfecting them. This is the area examined by Axe and Durston.

    In modern organisms, mutation and selection appears to have a limited range, and it does. When you are near the optimum, nearly every direction is downhill.

    But there is no reason for us to argue this. Neither of us is an active researcher, and there are plenty of work being done on protein evolution.

  107. 107
    Oramus says:

    Evolution is a faction.

    Nice one , Clive.

    Can never have too many tools in the box.

    Thx.

  108. 108
    Upright BiPed says:

    Since I am the uncivil one to whom the above comments are targeted, perhaps I should make a comment about it.

    But first, I would like to focus attention on comment #101 by Gpuccio.

    GP, your observations are exactly what I was reacting to.

    Because ID opponents can’t really say anything about information, because they can’t produce a symbol-making mechanism, because they can’t answer how meaning became instantiated into matter, they are instead reduced to an endless shuffling of the argument itself. Kicking the can down the road, as it were. If this was any other topic whatsoever, I think the vast majority of observers would get it in an instant (if for no other reason than the dynamics). Anyone who has lived with even a modest amount of conflict or reflection in their lives KNOWS what it means when someone continuously badgers a question (virtually any question) without ever addressing it. We know this because we are interacting human beings. We all KNOW what it means when someone constantly changes the issue, or when they incessantly demand that an answer must be given in a certain way.

    It is one of the things that ID opponents seem to forget. Perhaps they forget it amongst the emotional certainty they gain by their sheer numbers (since it certainly can’t be their evidence). No matter how you attack this topic as a competition between defenders (of their own ideas) you cannot remove the “human” from it. You can’t remove the human dynamics. We all are in the same boat when it comes to this part of the argument.

    As for mathgrrl, she was given star treatment by GP who patiently responded time and time and time again. Wrapping up your schtick in niceties doesn’t change the BS. No more than crying crocodile tears when someone points it out.

    – – – – – – –

    By the way, how many of you ID opponents would like to give us a full dissertation on how badly you feel about the constant and very personal haranguing given to ID proponents by your esteemed brethren like PZ Meyer, or Richard Dawkins, or Chucky Moran, or Hitchens, or Coyne? How many of you will take the time to produce the quotes one by one and then attack them with your righteous indignation? How many of you freedom lovers want to produce the comments by the leader of the NCSE who thinks grad students should be measured by their religious convictions? How many want to explain in detail how professionally insulting it is for Michael Behe to be cordoned off by his university. Perhaps you can produce some other such instances which may then be used as a comparative model of how he should be treated? Give us an explanation as to how such an abomination of professional conduct could gain a hold on the leadership of an American university? Tell us what you propose can be done to give back (at least some of) what has been taken from him by your side of the argument?

    Snore.

    The moderation policy of a smallish website is much fairer game, is it not?

  109. 109
    HouseStreetRoom says:

    Upright Biped,

    Right on. Gpuccio consistently answers the questions put to him and then some; and not just on this thread. He goes out of his way to provide clear and direct responses, even to dishonest questions, in some cases. So I find it astounding that he’s being chastised for “incivility”, just by virtue of him being a tad impatient. I sure would be (and then some).

    I would agree that the general trend is as presented in 101, just as a casual observer.

  110. 110
    Upright BiPed says:

    Hi House Street,

    It is I being chastized for incivility.

    GP is in for intellectual dishonesty.

  111. 111
    tgpeeler says:

    Upright re #105

    BRAVO.

    And regarding #107, by my (very high) standards (that I myself never attain) you are both paragons of civility and intellectual honesty.

  112. 112
    Cabal says:

    gpuccio,

    one of the few speculative papers which are published with the main purpose of falsifying ID (the science which should not be a science)

    Forgive my curiosity, but exactly what is the theory of ID? AFAIK, it simply is the ‘design inference’; i.e. that “certain things are too complex to be the result of natural …” and therefore must be the result of Intelligent Design, i.e. the work of an intelligent designer, most probably G-O-D.

    Since we are left with what most likely amounts to high level magic inaccessible for study by any means or methods available to us, how could it be studied, or falsified?

    As far I’ve been able to find, the scientific consensus on ID is that not being a scientific theory, it is not available for falsification. Any argument may be countered with “we don’t know who the designer is, or how he works”. That is, anything may be attributed to the designer.

    Could you point at some of the potentially falsifiable evidence of design? By evidence, I am thinking more like something observable or tangible rather than inferences, (im)probability calculations and such.

  113. 113
    Petrushka says:

    Tell us what you propose can be done to give back (at least some of) what has been taken from him by your side of the argument?

    How about establishing online journals [done] where ID proponents could publish the results of serious research?

    Since this has been done several times, what happens to those journals? Why do they wither for lack of serious research articles?

    Gpuccio has published several critiques of Szostak on these threads, but they are lost, because threads here get pushed down to the point where no one can find them.

    If ID proponents have ideas worth preserving, they should be worth preserving in a repository that has a memory, so that they can be discussed.

    The other dimension of this is that the authors of these articles need to engage the science community and respond to critiques. Having an online journal ensures that there is a place to respond, a place where authors can publish and defend their best ideas.

    Blogs and forums are entertaining, but they have no memory.

  114. 114
    gpuccio says:

    Cabal:

    In many threads I have stated that my vision of ID is completely different form what you describe. The design inference is only the first step, and the only reason why we cannot go much further at present is that exactly that first step is at present fought fiercely by the scientific establishment with false arguments such as yours, and is not even geven the minimal status of a testable hypothesis.

    If we accept the design inference for biological information, a lot of legitimate questions arise, such as:

    1) Who is the designer (or who arethe designers)?

    2) When is the design implemented?

    3) How is the design implemented?

    4) What formal characteristics can we observe in the design?

    5) What purpose can be infered for specific designs?

    6) Is the design implementation gradual or relatively sudden?

    And so on.

    Now, my point is that all of these question can and must be approached empirically, even if we cannot be sure that all of them can be easily answered.

    For instance, as we know more details about genomes, proteomes and natural history, it will be possible to apply the concept and measure of dFSCI to many well defined scenarios, and that will certainly tell much more about the time modalities of implementation of the design, and about the characteristics of the design itself. In the same way, further understanding of the structure of protein functional space will allow better measurements of dFSCI in multiple cases. All of those things, obviously, will allow more detailed evaluation of the alternative darwinian model.

    Because, as I say often, there is no darwinian research or ID research: research is the search for facts, and it is one. But, obviously, both tha planning of research and, especially, the interpretation of results are haevily dependent on the general model which is assumed.

    Finally, I find that your last phrase is epistemologically strange. You say:

    By evidence, I am thinking more like something observable or tangible rather than inferences, (im)probability calculations and such.

    Why do you say that? Facts are facts, and I think we agree on that. But the assume a meaning only in the context of scientific theories. And scientific theories are inferences (at least the empirical ones, leaving out mathematics and logic). And (im)probability calculations are by definition an essential part of any scientific theory which includes the evaluation of random events or just of random data. So, are you criticizing ID for doing what science should do?

  115. 115
    gpuccio says:

    UB:

    I am really happy to be in together with you! 🙂

  116. 116
    warehuff says:

    gpuccio: “The design inference is only the first step, and the only reason why we cannot go much further at present is that exactly that first step is at present fought fiercely by the scientific establishment with false arguments such as yours, and is not even geven the minimal status of a testable hypothesis.”

    The only people who can make ID a testable hypothesis are ID theorists who think up ways to test it.

    So how would you go about it? What kind of tests will tell you who the designer is, how and when the design is implemented and whether the implementation was gradual or sudden?

    The mean old science establishment can’t think of any way to do that, so they say that ID isn’t testable. But you don’t have to take any of their guff. Just think up tests that will answer those questions, do the tests and throw the results right in the establishment’s face!

    Money won’t be a problem. The Templeton people have oodles of money and they have already financed pioneering research on the effectiveness of dreams. If you or any other ID researcher presents them with any kind of test that looks like it has a chance of answering any of your questions, the money will be forthcoming.

    Go to it!

  117. 117
    warehuff says:

    Correction: The Templeton Foundation has financed pioneering research on the effectiveness of PRAYER, not dreams.

    Sorry, it’s early in the morning.

  118. 118
    vividbleau says:

    RE 105 Great post upright.

    Since when is saying one is “posturing” uncivil? I dunno seems pretty tame stuff especially when it was an accurate observation!!

    Vivid

  119. 119
    gpuccio says:

    warehuff:

    The mean old science establishment can’t think of any way to do that, so they say that ID isn’t testable.

    No, they say that becasue they don’t want to accept ID as a scientific hypothesis. It’s simply a fasle defense.

    So how would you go about it? What kind of tests will tell you who the designer is, how and when the design is implemented and whether the implementation was gradual or sudden?

    No special tests are needed. Just a better understanding of the main biological problems will help clarify whether darwinism or ID explain better the facts. (Indeed, I am sure ythat oit has already clarified that, but as most people still stick to dogma, maybe further evidence will help).

    So how would you go about it? What kind of tests will tell you who the designer is, how and when the design is implemented and whether the implementation was gradual or sudden?

    Just an example. Darwinism today still hides behind many details we still do not know well: it could be this way, some millions of functional intermediates could be found for protein domains evolution, and similar fairy tales. As we sequence more genomes, study more 3D protein structures, understand better the relationships between species, correct the errors in molecular clocks, analyze better the homologies between proteins, and so on, we will certainly understand what the real scenario of evolution is. Then, it will be easier to see where the information gaps are, and the ID approach will be able to identify at least some clear instances of jumps in the information content of the genome and the proteome fro which no ither explanation than a designed intervention will be available.

    The time factor will be critical, and it will give us some insight about the “graduality” problem.

    As we get rid of the false notion that only survival has driven evolution, we will begin to ask what the real motivations for the design structure may be. Exploration of possible functions and expression of life potentialities could be recognized as a better unifying concept for the diversities of life design.

    Even more interesting could be the details about design implementation: in particular, we should be able, with enough detail, to distinguish between the effect of guided mutations versus artificial intelligent selection after a targeted random search. The phenomenology of those scenarios will obviously be different, but at present we have not enough “resolution” of molecular events to decide on those subjects.

    And so on. As you can see, the problem is not to “prove” ID. The problem is to discover facts, and reason correctly about them. ID and darwinian evolution are not specific interpretation of small parts of reality: they are both very general theories, under many aspects antagonistic and incompatible, to explain the whole of biological reality. There are no small tests for them, but only the big test of understanding what life is, and how it originated.

  120. 120
    warehuff says:

    Sorry, gpuccio, but doing nothing and waiting for further discoveries to confirm Intelligent Design has been a losing proposition since 1859. It’s basically saying that ID theorists can’t even think of any experiments that would validate ID theory, but we should believe it anyway. No other branch of science gets away with this and there’s no reason to make an exception for ID, which has been a failed theory for over a century and a half after all.

    The sad fact is that anybody can come up with any kind of hypothesis and hundreds of weird ones are thought up every year. (Did you see that Geocentrism is back again?)

    To gain widespread acceptance, a hypothesis needs lots of supporting evidence. The Gold Standard for evidence is to have a candidate hypothesis make a prediction that differs from whatever theory is dominent in a non-trivial way and then to do an experiment or find some evidence that matches the prediction.

    For instance, Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity wasn’t widely accepted until it was tested by measuring star deflection during a total eclipse of the sun. The deflection was what Einstein’s theory predicted and that was the start of relativity’s wide acceptance.

    Alfred Wegener’s theory of continental drift was interesting and quite a bit of evidence supported it, but virtually nobody gave it any creedence – until bands of alternating magnetic polarity were found paralleling undersea mid-ocean ridges, which were direct evidence of the plate motion that Wegener’s theory predicted.

    ID is up against a well developed theory that was first proposed 150+ years ago and which is supported by many lines of converging evidence, such as fossils, homologies between closely related species, distribution of plants and animals, dna evidence and more. ID has to find even more compelling evidence than evolution has if it expects to find wide acceptance.

  121. 121
    Petrushka says:

    ID has to find even more compelling evidence than evolution has if it expects to find wide acceptance.

    Here’s an interesting and unexpected development: a plasmid that seems to carry all the proteins necessary to produce a flagellum, but not attached to a genome. It seems capable of infecting bacteria of many types, possibly conferring motility.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm.....MC2615216/

    It was found in one of the first bacteria to be fully sequenced. If it is unique, what are the odds that it would show up in the first few out of millions of species that might be sequenced?

    If it is not unique, would an ID advocate expect plasmids to come in many varieties, possibly with many subsets of genes for complex structures?

    The linked article describes a bacterium that caries the plasmid, but is itself, not motile. What’s up with that?

  122. 122
    tgpeeler says:

    j-mac from way earlier… “Now here’s my (our) question. If natural processes could account for 99.99% of the formation of humans over a certain period of time,…”

    Now here’s my (our) answer. Natural processes cannot account for any information of any kind, ever, in any possible universe.

    There are four (at least) pre-requisites for information:

    1. symbols
    2. rules for manipulating those symbols. (We might call 1 & 2 a “language”.)
    3. free will for following the rules, so as to create information.
    4. an intent or purpose to communicate a message.

    Physics (natural processes) never has, never will, and never can explain any of those prerequisites for the very simple reason that they involve ABSTRACT or immaterial “things.” The reason this is so is because physics is about matter and energy, not about abstract or immaterial things.

    Dear God in heaven, what is so difficult about this?? It really is beyond me. If you think I am wrong, and I know you do, just give me ONE example of information created by physical processes unaided by mind. JUST ONE. In other words, create a message or tell us how, in principle, a message of any kind, biological or otherwise, could even begin to create information. In other words, falsify my four pre-requisites.

  123. 123
    warehuff says:

    tgpeeler, I think you’re confusing language and information. (As you hint in #2.)

    Do you agree that whatever information is, the portions of DNA that specify proteins contain it? If so, then information can definitely be created by natural processes.

    As an example, consider the mutation to the DNA of some residents of Milano, Italy. That mutation changes the protein apolipoprotein-AI to a modified form known as apolipoprotein-AIM.

    People who are fortunate enough to have the apo-AIM mutation have a greatly reduced risk for arteriosclerosis (clogged arteries), heart attacks and stroke. (The mutation was discovered while doctors were investigating a family that virtually never suffered from heart attacks. Apo-AIM turned out to be why.)

    Apo-AIM removes cholesteral buildups on blood vessels and also has an antioxidant that prevents some of the inflammation damage caused by arteriosclerosis.

    The net result is a greatly reduced chance of heart attack, stroke and arteriosclerosis. I wish I had that new information in my DNA!

    The new information was produced by mutation, which is a natural process afflicting living organisms, which operate according to the laws of physics. Thus your claim that information cannot be produced by natural processes is wrong. Q.E.D.

    See http://www.talkorigins.org/faq.....otein.html for details or google for apolipoprotein-AIM for lots more info.

    I particularly recommend http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12016263 which is titled “Recombinant apolipoprotein A-I(Milano) infusion into rabbit carotid artery rapidly removes lipid from fatty streaks.” It looks like manufacturing and injecting the mutant APO-AIM can give us non-mutants the benefit of the mutation! Way to go, Darwin!

  124. 124
    tgpeeler says:

    warehuff, I don’t think so. If I may recommend a period of serious reflection upon the claims I made concerning language and information then perhaps you will understand. If not, well then, so be it. The fact that you think I’ve confused or conflated the two tells me you have not really understood the argument in the first place. In the meantime, I will look over the links you provided. Regards.

Leave a Reply